Talk:Psychoactive drug/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


older entries[edit]

This article ought to be deleted and the information contained therein ought to be put in Category:Psychoactive drugs. - Centrx 03:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


To whomever made the drug chart. It is fantastic and cleared up a lot of confusion for me. Before the chart drugs were a tangled mess in my head. This did a great job of clarifying things for me, quickly and easily, can this be nominated for a Wikipedia award or something. TimL 14:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank-you very much :) Stillnotelf awarded me a Graphic Designer's Barnstar for the design, but if you mean that this chart should be recognized by Wikipedia, there is always the Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates page where you could nominate the chart (likely under Drawings and diagrams). --Thoric 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmm I think there is a problem with that though as it is an image with text overlaid. The image itself is just the background. Not sure how to proceed. TimL 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I uploaded a 300px image based on a screen capture so it shows the links (still readable too). Hopefully this will straighten things out ;) --Thoric 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


by request, and personal experience, i think cannabis should be replaced by marihuana/pot, and hashish should be added along with thc in the chart. Hashish it not an anti-psychotic in any way, but can quickly become the opposite. (

Cannabis is the correct botanical name for the plant, while marihuana/marijuana is a slang term that was purposefully adopted to label the drug as something only used by Mexican immigrants during a time when the overall American populace held a strong negative view of Mexican immigrants stealing their jobs (around the time of the Great Depression). "Pot" is also a slang term. Hashish is a specific preparation. If we were to have both cannabis and hashish on the chart, then why not have beer and wine along with alcohol, and crack, cocaine and coca where cocaine currently is? The only reason I put cannabis, THC and CBD separately on the chart is because CBD can have an anti-psychotic effect, THC can have a hallucinogenic effect, and (most) cannabis has significant quantities of both. Because there is more THC than CBD in cannabis, it is placed lower on the chart to indicate that it produces much more of a hallucinogenic effect than an anti-psychotic effect. --Thoric 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been replacing esp marijuana but any slang term with the generic cannabis wherever I can on wikipedia. This is the name of the articles Cannabis and Cannabis (drug) and would thus oppose very strongly any use of words other than cannabis except when, for instance, we are describing hashish in particular

Can someone explain how cannibus is a stimulant and a depressant, i have seen people (and felt) both ways under the influence of canibus, but under the medical term, does it slow or speed up the CNS

It does not operate directly upon the CNS, and while there are CB1 receptors in the CNS, and the depressant-like effects tend to be more common, cannabis does not appear to directly stimulate or depress the CNS. It could be that there are not enough of these receptors within the CNS to allow the cannabinoids to cause a dangerous effect on CNS activity (i.e. causing enough CNS depression to shut down such critical functions as breathing). --Thoric 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Drug chart[edit]

I added in my drug chart here... with hopes it will be improved upon ;)

Items I'm unsure if I've placed correctly:

  • Cannabis -- should this be in the psychedelic section?
  • Should the cholinergics be shifted left into the blue?
  • Ibogaine -- psychedelic, dissociative, or both?
  • Which dissociatives should or should not be considered to also be depressants?
  • Does adrenaline/epineprine belong in here?

--Thoric 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alcohol works as a stimulant in low doses (causing a "buzz") and only as a depressant in higher doses. I think this should be displayed in the chart somehow. If you want evidence I can supply it for you as there are many sources that reflect this. Also, you've probably experienced this yourself, if you're a drinking man, as that accounts for the "social lubrication" or "social buzz" that "social drinking" provides.

If I may interject, I personally think of ethanol as being purely a depressant. The "social lubricant" effect is likely due to disinhibition, i.e. depression of these "social inhibitons" that we all have to some extent or other. Benzodiazepines, which are usually classiffied as pure CNS depressants, are also known to exhibit this effect. Just my $0.02 --Seven of Nine 05:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I know you worked hard on the chart, but its format as a sort of ven diagram is really innapropriate. Grouping in that way with the overlaps is too subjective. Too many of the substances can be argued to be in more then the overlapping categories.

The groupings are the same as in medical texts (sedative hypnotics, narcotic analgesics, psychomotor stimulants, dissociative anesthetics, etc, etc), so I don't see how they are "subjective". Certainly many drugs have multiple effects, but most drugs fall into a primary category. If the medical community labels a certain drug a certain way, then how would organizing these drugs and categories into a chart be anything but helpful to the layperson who doesn't know the difference between cocaine and heroin? Please explain and be more specific. --Thoric 15:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't think this diagram will be that helpful. I am a medical student and the chart really confused me. Looks like partly overlapping boxes? If that is so, the middle part with the cholinergics wouldn't make sense. And looks like you place the SSRI's under the antipsychotics??? I think the variety of drugs involved is too complex to fit in such a diagram. I think this diagram should be removed.
How about improved rather than removed? This chart is to help the lay-person, not a medical student... but I'm concerned to why you'd be confused by it... Is subtractive color mixing too complicated for you? There are 3 (+1) overlapping boxes, blue for stimulants, red for depressants, green for "halluncinogens" and pink for antipsychotics. The overlapping areas include areas with shared tendencies. Do you think the middle part with the cholinergics should be more to the left? Then say so! Don't just say that it wouldn't make sense -- say why. There's a nice blank spot for them in the blue zone immediate to the left of where they are now. All the substances overlapped by the pink tint (and also including the cholinergic section -- i.e. nicotine) have some mood stabilizing properties. Most people who take anti-psychotics are also on SSRI's and some people who have mood disorders are put on antipsychotics rather than SSRI's. Psychotic behavior is more usually caused from excess dopamine rather than excess serotonin. And how about signing up for an account and adding some constructive criticism? --Thoric 4 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

How about improved rather than removed? This chart is to help the lay-person, not a medical student...
I don't think they will become much wiser, when even people that are not new to the subject are confused by the chart.
Is subtractive color mixing too complicated for you? There are 3 (+1) overlapping boxes, blue for stimulants, red for depressants, green for "halluncinogens" and pink for antipsychotics.
To me it looks like 4 partly-overlapping boxes, in which case the middle part of the image should be white and have nothing in it. But from what you tell I understand it is one blue/red box and overlapping green and pink boxes???
Most people who take anti-psychotics are also on SSRI's
Only when they also have depressive symptoms, which a lot of them have, not to treat psychosis or schizophrenia.
some people who have mood disorders are put on antipsychotics rather than SSRI's.
Interesting... do you have evidence for this or more information? I only know of antipsychotics being used as a temporary treatment for acute mania, but usually lithium is preferred over them.
Psychotic behavior is more usually caused from excess dopamine
This is only a hypothesis and has as far as I know never been proven so far. See Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia
And how about signing up for an account
Hope you are happy now that I haved logged in... didn't know I had to log in whenever I post critisism. --WS 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Drug Chart

Yes, I am happy now that you logged in. The middle part of the chart is white... and it has cannabis in it because it sort of doesn't really fall into any of the categories directly... it's not a CNS depressant or a stimulant, yet for some people it causes relaxation, and for others a "high". It doesn't really cause typical "psychedelic" effects either, although can cause entheogenic experiences in very high doses, and has synergistic effects with hallucinogens. The anti-psychotic section is new, and I am not sure that it is correct, although I think it's not too far off. As I stated further back, I hope to improve on it. Please take a look at my original graphical chart from which I based the color square table diagram, as it is a little more clear (though you can see I've since moved things around a wee bit). --Thoric 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

One problem with the chart - where do mood stabilizers like Lithium and Depakote fit into this chart? I ask because psychoactive substances should be a superset of psychiatric medications, which has 4 major drug classes (stimulants, depressants, anti-psychotics and mood stabilizers). So shouldn't this chart have 5 circles? I know it won't make the chart any simpler, but I'd like to see this article and the Psychiatric Meds and Psychopharmacology articles work more closely together. Steve carlson 05:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Salvinorin A[edit]

Definitely needs to be in the overlapping area between psychedelic and dissociatives.Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comment below on DXM. --Thoric 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Probably needs to be in the overlapping area between psychedelic and dissociatives.Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read my comment below on DXM. --Thoric 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Should be in the psychedelics, maybe next to LSD --TheJamerson

As far as I am aware of, LSA is not hallucinogenic at all, so it doesn't belong here. It is a more a depressant, but not notable enough to get included. Any reported hallucinogenic effects of ololiuhqui are clearly caused by something else. If that's not adequately reflected in the LSA article then that article should be changed accordingly. Cacycle 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
LSA is a psychedelic depressant, if that wasn't mentioned then it should be changed. Check my source Erowid Morning Glories --TheJamerson

Erowid mentions LSA as causing psychedelic hallucinogenic effects, and if I'm not mistaken, that's our most reliable psychoactive substance information source. If I'm not mistaken, isn't LSA a milder form of LSD? 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


My references don't mention a dissociative effect of ibogaine. Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


This is just a small point regarding the chart. I noticed that Muscarine is on there, and Muscarine exerts no effect on the CNS - if I'm not mistaken, that means it isn't classified as a Psychoactive drug. I won't remove it because I'm not certain, but maybe anyone who is more versed in Pharmacology can adjust the chart? Thanks --Panentheon 26 August 2005 17:26 (UTC)

I've seen muscarine classified as a (CNS) stimulant in some places, but maybe those were misclassifications? Some references state that it has difficulty passing through the blood-brain barrier. As there are muscarinic receptors in the brain, muscarine would have an effect if some did pass through the blood-brain barrier. Maybe there is another chemical substance that would better replace muscarine in the chart? --Thoric 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


I noticed someone ( added DXM to the psychedelic side. While some consider DXM to be a "psychedelic", it still belongs in the dissociative section. Please read both the psychedelic drug and dissociative drug pages for clarification to how substances under both categories can have similar effects. --Thoric 06:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually DXM more correctly belongs to both categories so I moved it thusly. See Erowid's DXM Vault and Non-medical use of Dextromethorphan. The reason for placing it in the psychedelic category at all is primarily because of its action on serotonin receptors--see psychedelic drug. --Amor_Fati 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Erowid's classification of a both dissociative and psychedelic is misleading. The "psychedelic" effects of DXM are from its dissociative effects. PCP has similar effects, and is also incorrectly labeled as a "dissociative psychedelic" on the wikipedia page. Those pages should all be corrected. This chart separates the distinction between a hallucinogen (for lack of a better broad term) which has a psychedelic (for lack a of better term) effect, by which we mean a consciousness expanding drug, from the dissociatives which actually have an opposing effect -- consciousness narrowing / fragmenting. Ironically both kinds of drugs can result in similar subjective effects. There is also a third subcategory -- the deliriants, which is the far extreme end of dissociation whereby the conscious and subconscious are scrambled to the point of switching roles, putting one lost in a waking sleep. If anything, substances such as DXM and PCP lie between the psychedelics and the deliriants, although they are placed in the realm of the depressants due to their CNS depressant effects -- which is very important, so that people are aware that any substance in the depressant realm carries the danger of CNS depressant overdose (meaning that if you take too much, your breathing may be depressed to the point of asphyxiation. --Thoric 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why, I don't see any reason to relate dissociatives with deliriants. Care to elaborate? Though deliriants sometimes have a somewhat dissociative effect. Thoughts become completely nonsensical, and the user sees things from the subconscious, consciously. However, dissociatives don't, to my knowledge, have deliriant effects. The hallucinations from dissociatives, from my understanding, would be considered more psychedelic instead of delirious or delusional. 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The deliriant effects would most definitely be described as "dissociative"... it is only that deliriants produce a markedly different sort of dissociation than the dissociative anesthetics do, and therefore merit their own distinctive subcategory. On the chart they are even in a completely different color. Of note, if you read some Erowid experience reports on PCP, you will notice a slight trend of overlap with deliriant experiences. --Thoric 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it only the Chlorpheniramine Maleate in Triple C's that cause deliriant effects, as is described in the non-medical use of Dextromethorphan article, or does DXM itself also do this? 18:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Dissociatives do share some characteristics with deliriants, but chlorpheniramine will most certainly increase the deliriant effects (and also makes for a dangerous, potentially fatal drug combination in high dosages). --Thoric 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


While I think the Venn diagram is excellent, I'm a little concerned about Cannabis. On inspection, it looks like cannabis simply fits all three of the major categories, but when I first saw it I thought it was a POV statment and/or subliminal message in favor of smoking marijuana. I don't see an obvious fix, but you might want to keep that in mind if you can think of a way to fix it in some future edit. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 01:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I could left-align it so it will be closer to the psychedelics section... but I'm really not sure where it belongs most. I did recently lower it down deeper into the "hallucinogens" section such that it was in line with MDMA. Maybe it should be deeper down? More to the left? Any suggestions? --Thoric 03:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps giving it a section title will make it less stark? "Multiple Effects" in the same style as the other 4 major categories? Artistically it's ugly less desireable and logically it's superfluous, but it makes diagram less "centered" on cannabis, which reduces the visual impact. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Hashish and cannabis sativa aren't strong but certainly are psychedelics. If you included MDMA into this cathegory than cannabis should also be included. Besides, drug culture recognises it as psychedelic. P.S. LSD is far more powerful than psilocybin - in terms of how much micrograms you need to produce psychedelic effects. Sorry for bad English ;) Kras; 9:18, 17 December 2005 (GMT+1)
It's on the cusp at the moment, but I could move it in a little deeper. Chemically MDMA is a much closer relative to the psychedelics than THC. As for LSD and psilocybin, their placement is such because LSD is a closer relative to mescaline than psilocybin is, and psilocybin is a closer relative to DMT than LSD is. --Thoric 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Psychoactive Drugs, Generally[edit]

I'd like to adress something I've noticed on nearly all pages that concern psychoactive substances. There seems to be a lot of scientific talk on these pages, and this page is the worst. I find this problematic because the scientific approach is only one viewpoint. Take a look at a website like, and you'll notice a very nice combination of both a scientific view and a personal/spiritual view of these peculiar substances. Presenting readers with just one side of the story is pretty unfair, I'd think, as the other side might be even more interesting for some readers or researchers that come here to find information. Things you could include would be the cultural and religious use of some of these substances, as well as the way they have been adopted by modern culture. Another downside of the scientific approach lays in the fact that DMT is mentioned as a psychoactive substance, but the Amazonian Ayahuasca, a combination of Banisteriopsis Caapi and Psychotria Viridus, (which is the chemical combination of DMT and Harmine/Harmaline, which is a MAO-inhibitor) is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Still, this brew is in itself a psychoactive substance, and worth mentioning: there is actually already a wikipedia page for it. I can speak all I like but I believe this story will be enough for you to get my point. Let's summarize it all by asking the person that made this whole chart (which I think can be a good idea, but is pretty chaotic in itself) if he ever used any of the substances he is talking about so much, or if he just read about them in medical/chemical literature? - Roald Blijleven (I apologize sincerely for not having a user and questioning your integrity anyway...and for maybe not knowing exactly how to work with the Wiki yet) - 25-11-'05

First of all, you are welcome to contribute to this and other articles. To address your concern, most pages end up a little dry (like all encyclopedias) as they tend to contain the agreed upon consensus between opposing views. This particular page is somewhat new and a work in progress, although it isn't meant to discuss the individual drugs mentioned as so much as to be a sort of index page directing you to specific pages about these drugs.
As for spiritual aspects, the entheogen page is the page you are looking for. I guess this article could have a direct reference there, but since the entheogens are primarily those in the "hallucinogen" (psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants) category, it wasn't clear if it made sense to directly associate the two.
I created the chart, and I've tried at least 17 or 18 of the substances listed on it. My preference is for the psychedelics, and have definitely had spiritual experiences. In fact, they inspired me to create this chart (the original graphical one linked to from this talk page) to go along with a book on psychoactive drugs I am working on. --Thoric 16:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

-- I would love to see hormonal drugs included here, e.g. birth control pills etc. There is a lot of netchatter about the effects on daily mood and thought processes if any bio-analytical types are so inclined. I don't have the specific degree but I'll be an apocryphal tale if anyone wishes. -- Rebecca (not logged in, not bothering to sign up at this late hour)

Diethyl Ether[edit]

I noticed that Diethyl Ether is in the Depressants category near Alcohol and Chlorophorm. This surprizes me, because I'm pretty sure that Diethyl Ether was a hallucinogen. I'm no expert, so I'd rather trust someone else to research this. Check out Diethyl Ether. Jolb 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The ether article only mentions recreational use akin to alcohol (actually as an alternative to alcohol). Descriptions from Erowid's Experience Vault primarily describe the experience as intoxicating (as in being very drunk) and euphoric. --Thoric 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Read more in the Erowid vaults. [1], [2], [3], and my personal favorite, [4]Jolb 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Strange experiences can come from heavy use of pretty much any substance, check out some of the alcohol experiences [5], [6], [7]. People have hallucinations when huffing gasoline, and other solvents like butane ([8]). I wouldn't say this qualifies every chemical solvent as a hallucinogen. Ether could possibly be shifted down the hypnotics circle along with other gaseous substances that have dissociative properties into the dissociative (yellow) section... but most of the non-benzo sedative-hypnotics has dissociative anesthetic properties, which can put a person into a dream-like state. The current lines of division on the chart place items within the red depressant area which are more likely to cause death due to overdose versus items within the yellow area. The opioids are also able to induce dreamy dissociative states as well as hallucinations, but again are kept within the red area. --Thoric 02:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug names on chart[edit]

I noticed that people have been replacing the drug names on the chart with the proper generic names, but wouldn't it be best to use the most recognized names for the drugs? --Thoric 21:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, those names were the ones used in the United States for the products, elsewhere in the world they are called differently. They are also called different names in the U.S. for different purposes (bupropion as Zyban for smoking cessation, Wellbutrin as an antidepressant). Wikipedia policy is to use the INN names for all drugs anyway, so I think the changes are appropriate. Tmrobertson 18:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nitrous oxide[edit]

Gustavb -- nitrous oxide was already in the dissociative section -- the whole right side of the bottom (hallucinogen) section is dissociative. PCP, Ketamine and DXM were grouped together because they have the same method of action. N2O has a different method of action. I'm not sure all four should be grouped. --Thoric 17:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, but it isn't very clear, and it is not consistent throughout the table. For example, nicotine is not a SSRI, but if the upper middle column would be read in the same as the lower right, one could get that impression. Maybe the heading should be emphasized even more to show that it spans all the content in the column. I will revert my changes, however, as you're right about the method of action. --Gustavb 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's not too obvious (hence why it is stated in the legend). I can maybe make it more clear by adjusting the colors some more. BTW, nicotine synergistically enhances the action of SSRIs ;) --Thoric 21:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice the legend, it makes it much clearer. Regarding nictoine and SSRIs, you learn something new every day :) --Gustavb 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


I've adjusted the chart a little... let me know if you think it makes more sense. Ideally I'd like similar drugs to be as close together as possible. --Thoric 22:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement, especially the ordering by potency in the dissociatives group and that you added inhalants. I still have some concerns regardning consistency and scope (i.e. what should be included and what shouldn't).
In the table some drugs are named as plants, some as their most active alkaloid, and others as both. For example "Cannabis" vs. THC (or cannabinoids), "Khat" vs. cathinone and cathine, but on the other hand, "Salvinorin" vs. Salvia divinorum, "Nicotine" vs Tobacco. (Both "Opium" and two of its most active alkaloids, "Morphine" and "Codeine", are listed.) -- I'm not stating that it's wrong, I just would like to know what the naming and inclusion policy is.
This is partly due to changes that were made by another person from the common North American names for the drugs to the proper generic chemical names. My intention was to use the most commonly known names for the drugs, but unfortunately that differs from place to place. So yes, Khat should be cathinone, and "Cannabis" should be THC. Maybe we should make two (or three) versions of the chart, and links between them?
Regarding the scope, I think we should aim for including as many different kind of psychoactives (in terms of action and usage) as possible in each group, this without listing too similiar substances, and without missing the most common ones. To give an example, some opiod with long duration (e.g. methadone) could be listed under "Narcotic Analgesics", as the others have relative short duration. And what about Tricyclic antidepressant and MAOIs in the stimulants' group?
The point of the chart is to give some visual insight to the average layperson as to how commonly known drugs relate to other commonly known drugs. For this reason we should try to ensure that priority is given to the most commonly known drugs. Certainly methadone should be added, and anything relevant should be added (within reason)
The more I think about this table, the harder it seems to make it perfect :) --Gustavb 03:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately a table is much harder to work with than a set of circles (see my original chart graphic linked above) --Thoric 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


It seems Nicotine is not under the sections ANTIPSYCHOTICS, STIMULANTS, DEPRESSANTS, or HALLUCINOGENS? What is Nicotine classified as? Or is it in a group of its own? Are Cholinergics in a group of their own?

Nictotine is currently in the "Cholinergics" subsection of the overlapping of the Stimulants and Depressants sections. The magenta (purple) section is the overlap of the blue (stimlants) section and the red (depressants) section. It exhibits qualities of both. If you google: nicotine depressant (no quotes), you will find many reference to it exhibiting both qualities. [9] [10] [11] [12] -- basically nicotine is a stimulant in small quantities, and a depressant in larger quantities. Actually, many depressants exhibit this behavior (stimulant effects in low doses). Nicotine is also synergistic with the antipsychotics, and have some minor antipsychotic effects of its own. --Thoric 01:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

New chart (in progress)[edit]

I've finally figured out how to make the chart properly using a graphic and overlaying the links on top with absolute positioning. Please check out my new chart so far, and let me know if you think it is far superior to the current one. Yes, I know it's not done yet, but it's a lot of work to position everything ;) --Thoric 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the new one, the circle going through cannabis eliminates my concern from above. You might want to tone back the blue further from link blue, and perhaps move psychomotor stimulants down so that the words aren't split between a white and blue background. Circles make for a much better Venn diagram than squares. Great job! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Done and done. (Plus some other rearranging). How does it look? :) --Thoric 02:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's perfect! I especially like what you did with sympathomimetic amines...who needs circles when you can use a cam? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :) It took me a couple days to figure out what to do about the sympathomimetic amines... I tried various elipses and eventually made a sort of egg shape ;) --Thoric 05:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


So is Cannabis classified as a Hallucinogens or in a class of is it in a class of its because it can produce the effects of Stimulants, Depressants, and Hallucinogents? Is more closer to one than others?--Zachorious 05:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Legally it is classified as a hallucinogen, and in the chart it is located in the middle, falling under all three classes, meaning that yes, it is a hallucinogen, but also includes the properties of both stimulants and depressants. --Thoric 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
THC is a hallucinogen - auditory and visual hallucinations are a common trend in many users over many different levels of doses. Paranoia stems from seeing or hearing people/events that don't really exist as a threat. --Nutschig 12:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Said hallucinations are only documented to occur in very high doses of oral consumption, or sometimes in people who are particularly sensitive to the effects. The same could be said about nearly any drug that is not normally considered in any way, shape or form to be hallucinogenic in regular usage. The same could be said about nicotine, as for some people high doses of nicotine are visionary. Of course these nicotine doses are at very toxic levels. Anyone who claims to have experienced significant visual distortions from THC on par with those of classic psychedelics (i.e. LSD, psilocybin, mescaline) from smoking a joint is most certainly embellishing a great deal, or their joint was laced with PCP ;) --Thoric 14:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Im a marijuana smoker and ive never seen something that wasnt there, or colours or any type of trip.

Well, quite a few people on here are likely marijuana smokers. There are quite a few Erowid experiences that describe unexplainable intense trips from marijuana. This is known to occur. Not to mention that oral consumption can undoubtedly cause hallucinations when enough is eaten. 17:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Psychotic Drugs[edit]

Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants do not belong in a chart or article lumped in with LSD, cocaine, etc. These drugs have little in common, especially as it relates to therapeutic value and addiction. Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants are not addictive or habit forming. There is an apparent attempt here to put every "drug" into a single article even if it has only a remote affect on brain activity or no therapeutic value. "Psychotropic" medication is a term commonly used by the medical field to describe legal and effective anti-psychotic drugs. It is not interchangable with "psycho-active." -- 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, they are in their own section. Second, some have very similar method of action. Third, anti-depressants and anti-psychotics can be habit forming. Forth, there are other drugs on this chart that are less habit forming than anti-depressants. Fifth, and most importantly, this page is of all common psychoactive drugs, hence the title of this article. The chart is a careful arrangement of all these common drugs and how they relate to each other. Your personal political views on which drugs have "therapeutic value" and which do not have no place here. For your information, drugs such as LSD and cocaine have a much longer and richer therapeutic history than all the antipsychotics and antidepressants combined. --Thoric 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is Bupropion considered an antipsychotic? It raises dopamine and norepinephrine levels, producing a stimulative affect, while antipsychotics sedate.

Bupropion is in the overlap of stimulant and antipsychotic, (as opposed to a pure antipsychotic). The other drugs on this chart with an antipsychotic-overlap include such substances as prozac and valium. Essentially all of the antipsychotic-overlap drugs exhibit an anti-depressant (and/or anti-anxiety) sort of effect, whether they are stimulating, sedating or a mix of both. Antipsychotics and antidepressants (and sometimes anti-anxiety drugs) are often prescribed for similar conditions, and also often in combination with each other. --Thoric 15:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Chart dispute[edit]

1-2-3-4 . . . The chart is nonsense and an example of original research that has no place in an encyclopedia. Thoric, you created the chart, so your interest in defending it is self-evident. Unless I see a compelling reason to keep an unsourced diagram, your creation will be removed from this article. You may then place it on your refrigerator and proudly show it to friends who visit you.-- 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what wiki says about original diagrams: Images that constitute original research . . . are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.Wikipedia:No original research Your diagram falls within this category and needs to be removed. Sooooorry.-- 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The image is not original research. It is a diagram that shows the established relationships of the drugs listed. If the author has created new classifications of drugs, that would be original research. --jackohare 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
If the relationships are as well established as you indicate, there should be no problem with finding a legitimate diagram from an external source, like a peer reviewed scientific journal or pharmacy text book. An original diagram by Thoric has no place in a wikipedia article. Please re-read the wiki policy.Wikipedia:No original research Much thanks!-- 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Er... that would most likely be a copyvio. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? --jackohare 00:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how the chart can be construed as original research any more than a table or other graphic illustration. Contibutors frequently create images, diagrams, etc. to illustrate wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials for example. It certainly doesn't reach the standard of a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Edgar181 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can't get permission for a copyrighted diagram and it is not fair use, then, you are correct, it would be a copyright violation. Legitimate scientific diagrams that don't violate copyright are difficult to come by. Good luck in searching for one. But if you can't get copyright permission, you just can't make up your own diagram with your own unsourced interpretations of the interelationships between drugs. That is called original research and it is not allowed in wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research P.S. Please show me a similar original image or diagram on wikipedia. -- 01:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW - The initial reaction to the drug chart on this discussion page was right on target. See above. The self-described med student/editor wrote, "I know you worked hard on the chart, but its format as a sort of ven diagram is really innapropriate. Grouping in that way with the overlaps is too subjective. Too many of the substances can be argued to be in more then the overlapping categories." He added, "Don't think this diagram will be that helpful. I am a medical student and the chart really confused me. Looks like partly overlapping boxes? If that is so, the middle part with the cholinergics wouldn't make sense. And looks like you place the SSRI's under the antipsychotics??? I think the variety of drugs involved is too complex to fit in such a diagram. I think this diagram should be removed." -- 01:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be your personal POV that the chart should be removed (and I have absolutely no idea why you have taken this so personally), but if other people believe the chart should stay, then you have to respect that decision. The groupings on the chart are based on scientific classification. I can cite references if you like, and cite published sources that I have in my possession as well. [13] [14] [15] [16]. --Thoric 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (P.S. The ealier criticism were to a square-box table rendition of the chart)
When it was partially overlapping boxes it was confusing. But that is not the case anymore. So you point to outdated criticism. TimL 17:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The drug classifications the original chart started with were based on those from Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition), William A. McKim, Prentice Hall; 5th edition (July 9, 2002), (Paperback; 400 pages), ISBN 0130481181. I own the 4th edition as well as the 5th edition. I'll have to get back to you on exact page numbers, but a quick flip through the index will show the common pharmacological groupings which are also links on the chart. The group headings on the chart link to existing Wikipedia articles. --Thoric 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed those links and they absolutely do not show the interaractive groupings displayed in the chart. Show me a source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics. Where on earth are you getting that from?! Just give me one legit source that says SSRIs belong in all three categories. I will be waiting.-- 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Obviously you do not understand the concept of subtractive mixing, nor combined effects. Anything in the chart which is situated in an overlapping color section is not necessarily under both sections (or all three), but instead belong to the section within which they are subheaded. The SSRI's are anti-depressants (and hence not depressants), and they are generally not stimulants. This is why they are located in the overlapping "no mans land" between stimulants and depressants. They are also not antipsychotics as they are not purely in the antipsychotics section either. They are SSRI's as labeled. Now, they can exhibit effects of all three of those categories. For people who are depressed, antidepressants will have a stimulating effect. SSRIs also can exhibit mood stablizing side effects. If you'd just care to do one iota of research of your own, you will find out that SSRI's such as paroxetine are prescribed for conditions such as anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. These are minor psychotic disorders, and antipsychotics such as quetiapine are also prescribed for anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. --Thoric 23:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You have 4 main shaded spheres labeled 1. depressants, 2. stimulants, 3. anti-psychotics, and 4. hallucinagens. You have placed SSRI's in a region where depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics overlap. Of course we both know that no textbook describes SSRI's in all 3 categories. So you now write that SSRI's show effects of all three categories. Who says? Where are you getting that? If this is so well known, why don't the editors of the SSRI article know this? BTW - I notice that you have placed cannabis in the center of your chart so that every other drug revolves around it. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. -- 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Three main shaded spheres (Depressants, Simulants and Hallucinogens) with a fourth elipse of antipsychotics. As for the SSRI effects, I described them above, and you only have to look as far as the Wikipedia articles I wiki-linked for you to see a list of those effects. The SSRI article clearly describes SSRIs being prescribed for minor psychotic disorders - "anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders".
Cannabis' primary constituent is THC, which is legally classified as a hallucinogen, but compared to drugs such as LSD and PCP, it barely qualifies. For some people it produces mild dissociation, for others mild stimulation, and for many, it is relaxing and sedating, yet it is not a CNS depressant, nor a CNS stimulant. It is placed in the ultimate "no mans land" in the center of the chart because it doesn't belong anywhere else. It may be ironic that it is both in the center of the chart, and is also the drug which receives the most political attention, but is certainly isn't my drug of choice. While I am anti-prohibitionist, I am not a cannabis user. Cannabidiol, the second major constituant of cannabis has recently been discovered to be an effective antipsychotic, and it is rightly located in the lower middle of the antipsychotics section. --Thoric 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Also -- stop dragging this argument into the voting discussion. I've moved the lengthy comments to the talk page of the voting section. The voting section is for voting. Your "strongly oppose" is already there, but if you want a big long discussion/argument, keep it to a TALK page, such as this one, or the one I provided for you there.)
As you know, items on the talk page page are not transferred to the main Featured picture candidates by the bot. You are attempting to censor dissenting opinions and prevent other voters from seeing the negative comments. Your motives are transparent. You are not fooling anyone.-- 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As you should know, the voting page is for voting, not for ranting. Rants are to be taken to talk pages. You are purposely cluttering up the voting page with your ranting. It has no place in that article whatsoever. The discussion belongs here. I didn't censor any votes or any of the negative comments within them. BTW, why do you refuse to sign in with an account? --Thoric 00:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming that Thoric's diagram can be cited to some authority. The NIH chart is excellent and should be substituted for Thoric's creation. You will note that no anti-psychotics appear in the NIH chart. Also, at NIH, marijuana is listed under the "Cannabinoids" category, not under the Depressants, Hallucinogens, and Stimulants as it is here. Thoric apparently thinks that he knows more about cannabis than the NIH researchers. -- 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a substitution. It is an ugly table -- a list, not a nice visual chart. Encyclopedia Britannica says that, "Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient of cannabis, or marijuana, obtained from the leaves and tops of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa), is also sometimes classified as a hallucinogen", the CSA classifies marijuana as a hallucinogen [17]. So why does it not belong partly in the "hallucinogen" section? --Thoric 22:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Both of you are mininterpreting the intentions of the NIDA chart link. That is intending only as a beginning; an example of a source one should use to cite the data contained within the chart. I think Thoric's chart has much merit, however his sources are not well-documented. Cannabis is indeed classified as a stimulant (increases heart rate), depressant (causes lethargy), and even as a hallucinogen (usually at higher doses) by most researchers of drugs of abuse. The NIDA distinction of "cannabinoid" refers only to the source of the drug (as marijuana and hashish are both derived from the cannibis plant). The point of Thoric's chart seems to be more of a classification by effect; given the topic of the article (psychoactive effects of drugs on the human), this layout seems entirely appropriate. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
You may also wish to reference Believe it or not, they're a well-respected, accurate resource for drug information. Check out this page here [18]. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank-you for your support. I am certainly learning the importance of keeping track of references. One can never assume that what believes to be common knowledge will not be heartily disputed ;) --Thoric 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the chart is very informative and would consider it a pity if it would be removed from the article. However, I suggest to switch colors of Stimulants and Depressants, as blue is traditionally considered a calming, red a stimulating color. David Andel 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Vote for chart as a featured picture[edit]

The psychoactive drug chart was nominated as a featured picture candidate. Please check out Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DrugChart and place your vote :) --Thoric 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I already voted to Strongly Oppose. It is an example of subjective original research that is prohibited from wiki articles. And shame on you for trying to toot your own horn rather than create an encyclopedic article.-- 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't self-nominate, I was only defending the chart, which you for some strange reason seem intent on vandalising. I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject from respectable published researchers, and have also consulted a few experts to make sure that anything wasn't way off base and ensure that the categorization was correct based on established scientific knowledge. None of the placements on the chart are subjective. --Thoric 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- and your vote was deleted because you weren't logged in. I nominated it because I have long sought to wrap my head around the relationships between the various psychoactive drugs, there are so many, and they deserve a good chart. This is it. TimL 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say great job on the chart, easily the best such diagram I have ever seen and I don't think most of the criticism makes any sense. I think overall it's an amazingly good, well constructed graphic to show how drugs relate to one another. I do wish you would show more of the opiates (it seems weird for hydrocodone and oxycodone to be missing on a chart like this while more abstract, obscure, esoteric drugs like muscarine and theophyline are mentioned) but I guess that may just be a spatial issue more than anything else. I also think salvinorin-A should somehow be represented as having psychedelic, dissociative and deleriant properties, as anyone who's experienced it could probably attest. Another minor question is I'm not sure why psilocybin is considered a stimulant on the chart, and likewise, why ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are near the fringe of hallucinogens (cocaine, amphetamines and ritalin are probably more likely to have psychedelic-type effects, no?). Other than those very minor things, great job on the chart, just wanted to provide some positive input in light of all the bashing that seems to be going on here!

I agree that oxycodone should be added... just more of a matter of getting around to it. I suppose salvinorin could be moved to the immediate left of the deleriant, but I felt it to be more between the deliriants and the dissociatives (btw, deliriants are also dissociatives). Items in the "psychedelic" section (i.e. psilocybin) are the more pure/classic psychedelics. These drugs are overlapped with stimulants as they most certainly keep you awake... I certainly can't sleep on them ;) Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine may be close to psychedelics on the chart, but they are in the purely stimulant section, denoting them as non-hallucinogenic. I would not say that the stronger stimulants (cocaine, amphetamines) would have psychedelic effects... in fact I would say the opposite. I might consider that the opiates belong closer to the dissociatives, as they do have a dissociative effect. --Thoric 15:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

More Evidence that the Drug Chart is prohibited subjective original research[edit]

If the drug chart is "correct based on established scientific knowledge," why is it constantly changing? The original chart did not include anti-psychotics as related to the 3 other categories. Image:Drug Chart version 1.0.png. Is the current chart scientific, but not the previous charts? Will the current chart be dismissed as unscientific when a new one comes out? If the relationships are as clear and as widely accepted as Thoric claims, the chart should not be constantly changing. The most recent chart legend states "Pink hue: The so called 'antipsychotics'. A new and controversial addition to the chart." Why is it controversial? Are there experts that would never include them in your chart? (I can answer that one: YES.) The chart is created from the mind of Thoric and it represents original research which is prohibited in wikipedia.Wikipedia:No original research -- 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not constantly changing. If you look at the original chart I created in 2003 after reading W. McKim's book, and compare it to the current chart almost three years later, you will see that it has changed very little. The major changes only involve additions, colorization and minor adjustments. --Thoric 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm affraid I share 24's worries about the chart. Original research applies to images. Thoric suggests it is a synthesis of papers he has read. That is original research, isn't it? JFW | T@lk 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be OR if he'd written the papers. Everything cited on Wikipedia is a "synthesis of papers" we have read, amongst other sources. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Until the relevant sources are cited, this is indeed in violation of WP:CITE, and if sources are not provided despite repeated requests one starts wondering if it is not original research. Your analogy is strange: everything cited on Wikipedia has a source by definition, which cannot be said about Thoric's interesting but fairly speculative drug chart. JFW | T@lk 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The headings and groupings are pharmacological. I have cited some sources if you'd care to read the rest of the talk page, as I said above The drug classifications the original chart started with were based on those from Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition), William A. McKim, Prentice Hall; 5th edition (July 9, 2002), (Paperback; 400 pages), ISBN 0130481181. This book is used as a text in a University level course. This chart represents the pharmacological heirarchy of drug classification. As for the NOR comment, did you even read the article you are referencing? Specifically with respect to original images? "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy. Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures." Not that the chart is original research, but even if it were considered such, it lies in a grey area. --Thoric 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed you added the McKim reference. Does that work actually have one of those Venn diagrams? Or does it simply rely on its classification? JFW | T@lk 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The chart relies on the classifications in that work, which are standard pharmaceutical classifications. That does not mean that a Venn diagram based on standard classifications breaks the NOR policy. --Thoric 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
As for images being NOR, a photo or drawing is artwork. This, however, is a diagram containing hard data. I fail to see how it can be exempt from NOR. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Because the hard data is based on published scientific/medical groupings. If you feel that some items are incorrectly positioned, please let me know. --Thoric 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman's edit summary[edit]

I removed the drug chart (twice actually) and was reverted by Ombudsman both times. The second time Ombudsman wrote this interesting edit summary[19]:

rv: technical concerns noted; however, your objective apparently is to suppress entirely valid content, a telling hallmark of Western medicine's barbaric legacy toward natural healing practices

This chart has absolutely nothing to do with "natural healing practices". I've clashed with this user before, which may explain why he feels it necessary to betray his bias against me, namely that I'm a barbarian. I take strong exception at this tone, and will report further inflammatory edit summaries at WP:AN/I with a request for sanctions. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You've also clashed with me. Maybe your attacks against the chart reveal you bias against me? You are siding with an anonymous user against several other editors. This chart has been in place for over eight months. I'm sure you have looked at it within that time, and now feel confident to remove it in its entirety rather than discuss it properly on the talk page. --Thoric 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I have not clashed with you directly, at least not for a long time. I actually expressed my doubts about the chart months ago, but forgive me for not finding the correct diff here and now. I am fully allowed to side with an anonymous user and to make a removal when I feel there are significant issues being raised that need to be addressed before this chart can be reinserted. The only bias I have against you is that you have inserted a nice piece of work that completely lacks the sources it was based on. It is a simple request, and if you take your own work seriously it should be a piece of cake for you to provide the source material in question. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I did put the reference to my primary source for the original version of the chart, and will have to add some more references to additional sources for futher additions and corrections, but for the most part I really don't see the classifications as all that controversial, and your neuroscientist friend didn't point out anything particularly out of whack either. I really don't think the chart should be removed until I provide a list of a dozen different resources, but I will get as many as possible for you as soon as possible. --Thoric 05:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
With the sources in place I don't see why it should be removed. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Also note that the classifications are also in line with those found in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs#Templates. --Thoric 14:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from any hostile tone, it is interesting that Ombudsman views the chart as bucking "Western medicine" and promoting "natural healing practices." After all, when confronted with criticism, Thoric, the creator of the diagram, has claimed it is a neutral diagram that is "correct based on established scientific knowledge." But even Thoric notes that the anti-psychotic part is "controversial," the chart is constantly changing and has been altered substantially since the first version, and now an editor says he supports it because it demonstrates an extreme POV. When I saw "natural healing practices," it certainly made me wonder again about cannabis being in the center of the chart so that every other drug revolves around it. The chart is original research POV and needs to go.-- 17:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The anti-psychotic part is controversial, mainly because there are a large number of doctors (esp. psychologists) who believe that anti-psychotics are poor medicine attempting to pharmacologically control disorders which have little to do with physical brain function, and all to do with psychological issues that can be fixed through therapy. It's also controvesial because people such as don't like to see the "medications" they are on grouped along with what they consider to be "street drugs". --Thoric 18:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. I think the natural healing/western medicine battle has roots with the fact that "western medicine" took folk medicine, extracted the active alkaloids and marketed them while calling the folk medicine bunk (from which they extracted the drugs don't forget). This chart helps make things clear, and those who like to pull the wool over your eyes don't like that sort of thing.
AND THE POV BEHIND THE DIAGRAM APPEARS! THANK YOU!! I rest my case, your honor.-- 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
What POV? You're making less and less sense every day. Not taking your medication while on holiday? --Thoric 19:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 24's response is not very helpful. Thoric, as I stated above: I will fully support the chart once the relevant sources are provided. I took the liberty of asking Semiconscious (talk · contribs), a neuroscientist and member of WikiProject Neuroscience, who agrees the content of the chart is correct in principle[20]. Ombudsman misrepresented my position as being anti-natural healing while my only real concern it whether it complies with WP:CITE and WP:NOR. I couldn't care less whether an alkaloid is from your garden shed or big pharma, as long as the categorisation can be backed up by serious research. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The removal of good and neccessary content is the real issue here. Regarding Ombudsman's edit summary, that was probably too much commentary and opinion for an edit summary, but I certainly wouldn't call it a "personal attack." He simply said that JFF's action in removing the chart seemed to be reflect a viewpoint which he disagreed with. Now about the chart itself, I don't see how anyone could consider it original research. A "new synthesis" is only OR for opinions and analysis - not for facts. All in depth Wikipedia articles are a new synthesis of facts from different sources. And tables and charts are no different from prose in that regard - it's meerly a different presentation style. The chart does a great service to Wikipedia readers, and its removal was completely inappropriate. If you object to a specific listing on that chart then go ahead and raise that in talk and/or put a {{cite}} tag by it, but don't take down the whole thing! I can't see anything wrong with the chart, and apparently your expert friend agrees. And regarding the alleged lack of citations, I see several books listed at the bottom of the article which you can go to your local library and check to verify. Some web-references for the categorizations would be nice, but that's not required. At any rate, I certainly don't see any orginal research or lack of citation issues that would warrant the removal of such an integral part of the article. And perhaps Ombudsman editorialized a bit much in the edit summary for the revert, but that issue seems quite minor comapred to JFW's inappropriate removal of content. Blackcats 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, someone coming to Ombudsman's defense given that this user appears to be allergic to talk pages. But Ombudsman has showed his true colours a while ago, so I'm not really in need of explanations or justifications.
A removal for valid reasons is quickly reverted, while an offensive edit summary remains in the history. Several users had raised the problem of original research, and as you can see on my userpage I may remove uncited information if sources are not presented upon request. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Quality of article and diagram[edit]

In its current form the diagram is highly misleading. It is in no way possible to arrange all psychoactive drugs in only three different dimensions. Every class of drugs has its very own and distinct effects and its very own mechanism of action. Chosing the current three "main qualities" of psychoactive drugs is indeed highly POV and disputable. Thoric clearly takes the arrangement too serious and tries to integrate too many different and unrelated classes into a way too simple scheme.

A simple version of the diagram could indeed be helpful as an overview and a quick entry into the complex field of different types of drugs. But the graphical appearance must not suggest more accuracy than the oversimplified scheme actually has.

Also the labeling of the main axes should be as general as possible and not identical to existing and distinct compound classes.

In its current form the diagram as well as the text of the article are not acceptable as a Wikipedia article and have to be improved and extended. Cacycle 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the simplification is an important issue with the chart. Psychoactive drugs can't simply be squeezed into three or four dimensions. Again, if the principles behind the chart can be traced to a source I don't see a problem (if that source is reputable enough). JFW | T@lk 13:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I think they can be, based upon the existing well defined classical drug hierarchies. A quick look at any drug classification scheme will list most psychoactives as either a stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen or antipsychotic. With few exceptions, most psychoactives can be plotted along two axis — a spectrum from stimulant to depressant, and a spectrum from hallucinogen to antipsychotic. Certainly this is a generalization, but that is the primary intention of this chart — to show the general relationships between common psychoactive drugs. The articles that are wiki-linked from the chart are supposed to contain the real detail. --Thoric 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the Venn diagram alot. It gives you an idea of the relationships between the different substances and examples of many subcategories and its also an original and I think more interesting and concise way of classification. This is something different, which is what I love about wikipedia - it might not always be super-accurate but there's often something you wouldn't find in a textbook, be it a little fact or diagram or whatever. There may be issues with it, but provided there's a disclaimer and changes continue to be made I don't see why the rather boring step of removing it should be taken. Wikipedia's featured articles/pictures should not only be those with their facts right or well presented, but also those that are original. This diagram deserves to be featured. Good effort 13:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


I have found a reference labeling antidepressants such as fluoxetine as stimulants (along with amphetamines, bupropion, cocaine, caffeine and nicotine). It's on page 110 of Susanne P. Schad-Somers, Ph.D. (1990). "The Biology of Cell Communication". On Mood Swings: The Psychobiology of Elation and Depression. Plenum Press. p. 273. ISBN 0306435624. . It is possible that SSRIs belong in the same section (but to the right of) the aminoketones (which means shifting the aminoketones slightly to the left, (and possibly the TCAs belong where the SSRIs are currently located, although they have anticholinergic effects, which means they wouldn't make sense being so near the cholinergics). Would this be more accurate? I really didn't think that the SSRIs were really stimulants (hence their current location). --Thoric 18:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Which drugs on the chart do people object to the classification of?...[edit]

I may have missed something, but it seems that for all the general complaining that I'm reading about the chart, nobody is actually naming specific drugs that they think are mis-classified. For example, is there someone here who thinks that morphine is not a narcotic and a depressant? Or that LSD is not a psychedelic hallucinogen which also has stimulant properties? Or that cocaine is not a stimulant that's a sympathomimetic amine that's a psychomotor stimulant? I'm not a pharmacist, so I don't have the same expertise as many certainly do, but as a lay person who's reasonably knowledgable about these things, everything in the chart seems accurate. If people have specific issues with it, then I think it would be a lot more productive for them to list specific drugs that they think are not properly classified. If there's just a general concern that the chart gives too simplified of an impression, then the chart can be modified to note that it's simply a basic overview. I'm thinking that most people will use the chart as just that - a basic overview of how various drugs fit into the different categories and sub-categories. Someone writing a masters thesis in advanced pharmacology is probably not gonna be looking to a Wikipedia diagram for the sort of highly-detailed information they need with all the subtelties discussed. Blackcats 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are kidding right? I challenged the creator to show me a text that says SSRIs are anti-psychotics AND depressants AND stimulants. And not 3 texts that need to be synthesized. He couldn't do it Every textbook I have seen displays the classification of drugs in simple chart with horizontal and vertical boxes. There is a reason for that. They are not all interrelated, with most drugs sitting in multiple categories. If the creator wants his creation published here, he needs to first get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Once we see it accepted by the medical community, we can then cite it in wiki and it won't be original research. I will be waiting. -- 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed the chart again. I personally think that the sources the author has provided may not be sufficient to explain all categorisations, and that the system used in the chart may be too innovative to escape WP:NOR. Still, the problems are too minor to remove the chart completely, and I suggest you start a request for comments. JFW | T@lk 13:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside Comments[edit]

So I emailed a professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and colleague down at the University of Southern California about this chart. He took a look at it, and here is he email response:

Yes, I agree the chart looks OK. The groups more or less mirror the receptors that underlie the actions (which is good). 5-HT agonists (LSD, psilocyn) are separated from 5-HT reuptake inhibitors but they both activate the same receptors. From an effect point of view this separation is correct. LSD probably initiates its hallucinogenic action by activating 5-HT2a receptors. The SSRIs increase 5-HT in the synapse so many receptors are involved in the overall action.
The legend says that THC exhibits effects of all three sections. However, it should be noted that its action is mediated by a completely separate class of receptors.

That last comment regarding THC is (probably) referring to the fact that THC has an effect on cannabinoid receptors. If anything, I would argue that this chart should also include nicotine as well, which also works on its own unique, nicotinic receptors. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This chart does include nicotine grouped with Betel nut and muscarine. THC is fairly segregated, but I have no problem with the legend noting special distinction. --Thoric 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the placement of SSRIs, other than that the chart seems quite appropriate, although simplified to it's limits. Can't really decide is there original research in it. Where on the chart would you place mood stabilizers like lithium carbonate, sodium valproate and lamotrigine, that are used to treat bipolar disorder? -- 17:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I had an idea of a cathegory for (mostly) serotonergic drugs, that would include drugs like SSRIs, l-tryptophan, 5-htp, trazodone and mdma. A bit controversial maybe, and might link ecstasy with legal drugs in minds of some. But worth consideration. -- 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, what are you proposing? --Thoric 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
A professor of pharmaceutical chemistry has some some input for this article? Great! Hopefully he has written a book with a chart in it so we can cite to it. Unfortunately, the chart here is an amateur hour original creation that has no place in an encyclopedia.-- 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Good article, good chart. Keep it in. --Dumbo1 00:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A question from someone with no expertise whatsoever![edit]

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this page, Wikipedia is enlightening as always. I have a question, and I have no doubt that the collected expertise of everyone here can help. I need to know why you think that something like cannabis is considered to be psychoactive, and something like an apple or a glass of water is not. Surely the consumption of, say, an apple has a temporary effect on brain state/function, and has an effect on mood, perception etc., even if this effect is negligible? Or is it qualitatively different? Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated!

I've seen a piece of toast used as an example of a "drug" by pharmacologist on those grounds. An apple might have an effect, but I don't think a glass of water would (unless you were dehydrated to start with). However, while it is an amusing hypothetical example, including pretty much any carbohydrate or whatever would seriously reduce the utility of the category. If pretty much every food etc. was grouped under psychoactive, and if close to 100% of the population were "high", then it would have no use as a descriptor (ie, it doesn't add any meaningful information). Limegreen 02:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
A psychoactive substance is anything that causes thought or perception to deviate from the norm. From a scientific point of view, this is difficult to define because we can't define "normal" consciousness. Hell, we can't even define consciousness. However, most people have an intuitive grasp of what this means for themselves and can project this feeling on to others. When you're drunk, you're not "normal". When you're stoned you're not "normal". When you're tripping you're definitely not "normal", etc. It's somewhat fuzzy, and somewhat subjective, but people are working on fixing that right now. Semiconscious · talk 07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm having, er, flashbacks to an introductory lecture. From what I recollect, there were 3 grounds for defining a drug: 1) functional 2) legal 3) therapeutic/abusive utility. Meeting 1 criteria *might* be sufficient, but generally speaking, most things considered "drugs" has to meet at least two. So toast might meet 1, but caffeine would hit 1 & 3, paroxetine 1,2,&3, cocaine, 1,2,&3 etc. (NB: This framework doesn't just apply to psychoactive drugs) Limegreen 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Subtractive Mixing[edit]

Thoric: Obviously you do not understand the concept of subtractive mixing, nor combined effects. Anything in the chart which is situated in an overlapping color section is not necessarily under both sections (or all three), but instead belong to the section within which they are subheaded. The SSRI's are anti-depressants (and hence not depressants), and they are generally not stimulants. This is why they are located in the overlapping "no mans land" between stimulants and depressants.

Tangentially related to the debate over this article, I wonder if part of the confusion relates to the use of subtractive mixing to indicate that a drug is not a member of either group. However, in more traditional Venn diagrams, if something is in both circles, it's a member of both groups. Although if you read the sub-text you'd discover this, I think its misleading until you really study it. Part of the disagreement between Thoric and 24 seems to stem from this, suggesting that it is somewhat ambiguous. Limegreen 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
That above text contradicts the text on the front page (has it changed?). Either way, I'm confused. And I think it's going to confuse others. Limegreen 03:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add another sort of a diagram to avoid confusion. Some more pharmaceuticals that might have a place on the chart: stimulants like dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate, MAOIs/anti-depressants; l-deprenyl, moclobemide and peganum harmala and ergoloid mesylates (a nootropic). It's quite difficult to add these so that the chart remains logical and stays within the rules. -- 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Dextroamphetamine is just an amphetamine, and methyphenidate is already on the chart. There is room to add more substances to the chart without making a new chart, but the point of this chart is to show the relationships between the most common psychoactives. This page isn't meant to be a list of every single psychoactive drug in existence. --Thoric 16:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent chart changes by[edit]

While additions and changes are welcome to the chart, I have spent a great deal of work in organizing the current layout. I would like to ask that you respect my request to discuss the changes here on the talk page first, before moving things around -- it is quite likely that things are they way they are for a reason. Items in the chart are grouped and organized in priority of classification, effect, relation of molecular structure and potency. Some items are located in specific spots relative to overlapping of effect, or close relation to certain chemical families. For example, DXM is purposely located in the cusp of disociatives and narcotics due to the fact that DXM is a stereoisomer of levomethorphan (an opioid), making DXM technically a close relative of the opioid family even though it has no effect on opioid receptors. Methylphenidate is in the amphetamine family, and cathinone is essentially a naturally occuring amphetamine. Cocaine was placed at the bottom of this list because it is not an amphetamine, is very short acting, and appears to share more CNS effects with methylphenidate. THC is the "psychedelic" part of cannabis (which also contains CBD, which has antipsychotic effects). --Thoric 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

CBD does not contain any antipsychotic effects: "Cannabidiol, also known as CBD, is a non-psychoactive cannabinoid found in the hemp plant Cannabis sativa. CBD is not psychoactive, and appears to reduce the euphoric effect of THC"

Yes, but that definition is outdated. The antipsychotic effects were documented over ten years ago PubMed:Antipsychotic effect of cannabidiol. Also see Cannabidiol: The Wonder Drug of the 21st Century?, and also Clinical Studies and Case Reports. If CBD is not psychoactive, then how could it possibly counteract the euphoric effects of THC? --Thoric 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bupropion does induce hallucinations and therefore cannot be classified in the "anti-psychotic" section

Bupropion only induces hallucinations at doses far above the recommended dosage, and only in some people. At proper (low) doses it has been used to treat patients with bipolar and schizoaffective disorders. --Thoric 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(Bupropion) is even an Phenethylamine.

So are the amphetamines, so are ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. --Thoric 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone might want to edit the Cannabidiol & Cannabinoids#Miscellaneous articles to make them clear that it DOES have whatever psychoactive effects it has - currently these pages and that page disagree - it's very confusing. I don't know what the effects are so I leave it to a better-prepared editor. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 06:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Have added book by Ronald Siegel, partly because he is an academic on this subject and because it compliments the what is already in the section A brief history of drug use . However, was forced to notice citations are still using an old foot note method, which contains a bug and makes referring to the same footnote more than once more difficult. The bug stops the auto numbering from working in this article, (maybe by the use of another template at the beginning). Since the new footnote method can not be used interchangeably with the old format, I didn't what to add a comment in wiki code to the ref section without a comment here in talk in case it confused the other editors. However the following comment added to the ref section would alert new editor to the new tagging system:

/<!--See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags-->


But all the existing tags would have to be changed.--Aspro 12:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A new chart[edit]

I think this classification is an excellent idea by Thoric, but I also believe there are some issues, already stated, with the idea that all psychoactive drugs can be simplified into 3 or 4 categories. I don't believe a venn diagram is a data structure that was designed with expandability in mind, and perhaps this chart would be more useful and less ambiguous if it were in a web or flow chart structure? 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

These issues have already been addressed... on more than one occasion. The categories in question are ones provided by science and medicine. I did not make them up on my own. While they may not be to a few people's liking, a large number of people are happy with this chart. It provides a clear overview to the average person on how different psychoactives relate to each other. If you have a design for a superior, yet equally simple layout, please go ahead and show it to us (on this talk page, or a link to a subpage, or to a link to a subpage of your user page). --Thoric 14:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy of psychoactive drugs[edit]

I noticed a huge gap in this article: nothing about the philosophy of psychoactive drugs. So I thought I'd start to fill it. Of course, your help is needed to improve what I have written. Most is generally accepted as true, but other parts could use some references. Korky Day 06:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


I suggest replacing opium with opioid in the Venn diagram. In contrast to all other items, opium is a heterogenous mixture of several alcaloids. Opioid is more relevant. --Drguttorm 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

An "opioid" is a generic term, not a specific drug. The "Narcotic anlagesics" heading already links to opioids. Opium is an opioid, as is codeine, morphine, heroin, etc, etc. BTW, the only reason that "amphetamines" is in there generically, is because there isn't really room to list them all in that section. --Thoric 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


It should be emphasized that ever since Ulysses forcibly removed his intoxicted oarmen from the forgetful Island of Lotus Eaters, the graeco-european culture considers mind-modification substances the utmost evil and entirely banned. The consumption of psychoactive drugs is a root denial of the CIVILIZATION as we understand it.

Drugs consumption is associated with barbarism and aboriginal wildness (zulu negro, redskins, asians etc.) whom all were throughly defeated by the material might of our graeco-caucasian civilization. The electricity, computers and Internet that make wikipedia any possible were all invented and realized by the non-drugged white civilization, therefore it is unacceptable to tolerate and euphemise psychoactive drug use on wikipedia. You have to choose between tech civilization and drugs, because tech civilization is the heritage of Ulysses, not the rastas! 09:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comment(s), but you should note that drug use has been a staple of civilization for all of recorded history, and most certainly for many millenia prior. Nothing is going to change this as can be seen from our modern dependence not only on a large pharmacopeia of pills, but also on copius amounts of coffee, tea, chocolate and alcohol.
As far as modern technology, much has been inspired from drug use, in fact a large amount of the technology boom in the late 60s and early 70s have roots in psychedelic drugs such as LSD --Thoric 02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
This discussion is being copied to Talk:Entheogen where I am sure it will be welcomed. __meco 12:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Molecular relationships & more[edit]

Right now, on the chart (which is very good, btw), cocaine and atropine are very far removed from each other. While I'm quite aware that the subjective effects of the two drugs are quite different, is there any way their close molecular relationship (both being tropanes) can somehow be indicated? Tmrobertson 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to put some thought to that. I don't believe cocaine shares any pharmacological properties with most other tropanes, and it is those relationships which the chart is primarily focused upon as far as layout and grouping. Perhaps this could be indicated by color-coding the text links? --Thoric 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Should SSRIs take a step to the left?[edit]

I'm wondering if the SSRIs should occupy the same general section of the chart as bupropion (and bump bupropion and diethylpropion further to the left of that section). Several publications label them as stimulants, and they have a low toxicity ratio. I've modified the chart on my talk page so that you can see what things would look like shifted around. I also feel that this may alleviate some of the controversy over the current placement of the SSRIs. (BTW, I can also add a little circle around them). --Thoric 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems that all stimulants exhibit some sort of "anti-depressant" effect (including caffeine, but) especially the psychomotor stimulants (i.e. amphetamines), so therefore I believe the above mentioned shift may be the most correct action, making the lavender colored area where stimulants and antipsychotics overlap to be designated for drugs specifically classed as antidepressants (although now that area leaves little room for future additions). It may just be that we need to extend the antipsychotic elipse into a full sized circle, meeting with the "hallucinogens" circle. Then comes the question as to whether the two should overlap (antipsychotics and hallucinogens). One argument for an overlap would be that cannabis naturally contains THC (the "hallucinogen") as well as CBD (the "antipsychotic"), such that cannabis could exist within the overlap of all four circles. If I'm going to make changes to the background image, I might as well do it only once. Please provide some feedback on this :) --Thoric 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Intersection of four circles of the same size?[edit]

I did the work (still rough) to see how a four-full-circle intersection would look/work. This change introduces a few more overlap scenarios, but they could prove useful. I really hope to get some feedback to whether I should replace the current chart with this one here: New Chart. Please take a look and let me know. --Thoric 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

After over two weeks, and only feedback from one wikipedian, I decided to go ahead with the new chart. I hope you like it ;) --Thoric 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How Can A Drug Be A Stimulant And Depressant At The Same Time??[edit]

For example Nicotine and Cannabis are both a stimulant and depressant. But aren't the two sort of opposites? A stimulant speeds activity in the nervous system while a depressant slows down activity in the nervous system. How can a drug speed up and slow down the nervous system at the same time? Do they go to specific parts of the body? Zachorious 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Nicotine is classified as both (although more often as a stimulant), here are some references: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. It appears that dosage is a factor. --Thoric 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So at different dosages, they can turn into a stimulant or depressent (for the drugs that overlap)? So for example marijuana may start out as a depressent but with more doses it becomes a hallucinogen? But still, if for example at certain dosages nicotine can become both a stimulant and depressant, how can they be so at the same time? Don't they cancel each other out? BTW, I'll read your articles too. Zachorious 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It does appear in some cases, certain drugs can exhibit both a depressant and a stimulant effect simultaneously. The reasons may be complex, such as having a "physical stimulant" effect such as raising the heart rate, yet at the same time having a "subjective depressant" effect by making you feel relaxed. It is possible that the brain tries to compensate where it can for certain effects, but some of these areas are still unclear. As for marijuana specifically, it is in an odd position as even with a wide range of dosage, the difference in physical effects are small, which is primarily responsible for its legal classification as "hallucinogen" even though actual hallucinations are rare anywhere near normal recreational dosages. In general, scientists like to be able to administer a drug to lab animals, and measure a physical dose-response curve. For example, with a stimulant, they keep increasing the dosage and noting such physical changes such as heart rate and blood pressure until the animal dies from a seizure. Likewise with a depressant, they keep increasing the dosage while monitoring heart rate and respiration until the animal dies from respiratory failure. With most hallucinogens, there is little physical change with dosage increase, and with some substances death does not occur until the dosage is ridiculously high (i.e. as high as where an injection of a placebo may cause death). The dose-response curve of heart rate, blood pressure and respiration may provide very little useful information, and only through complex behavior monitoring may any somewhat useful information be gleaned. In most cases, human experimentation is required, and thus raises ethical issues. --Thoric 17:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Many, if not most psychoactive drugs have different action when the dosage is changed. This is one of the reasons why a chart like this is quite difficult to make. -- 01:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Very true. The placement of most of the psychoactives on this chart are based upon a "standard dose", whatever that may be. Some items have been located based on dosages above the normal prescribed dosage (i.e. DXM, dimenhydrinate, diphenhydramine, etc) due to recreational use at these dosages. --Thoric 06:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The categories here are more of what the psychoactives technically are. But the categories of medicine on the chart are a bit controversial in my opinion. For example, SSRIs don't have much of an effect if a single dose is taken. They can help someone to sleep if they've had problems sleeping because of depression, and later sort of normalize your mood if the anti-depressant effect is achieved. There are two views when it comes to anti-depressant action on a person who isn't depressed. Some say they have an effect, and others (most of the time doctors and so on) who say that they don't have an effect of any kind. However I don't see them as stimulants. Tetra or Tricyclics may have a tiring effect when someone starts taking the medicine, but later when the drug is being taken daily it diminishes. Same goes for anti-psychotics. If you have citations for these classifications, the chart's alright. -- 12:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I do have references to SSRI's being classified as stimulants. The primary classification of a drug comes from its initial effects upon the central nervous system. Secondary is the long term effect of daily "medicinal" use. Some of these secondary effects are brought about from the body counteracting the primary drug effects. Others are the result of these chemicals causing the depletion of other brain chemicals. Many long term consequential effects are unknown. About the only thing well known about most of these drugs are their primary initial effects, and even then, much is unclear. I'll post more references next week. --Thoric 03:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

What about nootropics?[edit]

For example hydergine is missing on the chart... arent nootropics considered psychoactive? --ha-core 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Although hydergine is an ergot alkaloid (which would make it chemically closely related to LSD), I see nothing in its article indicating it has psychoactive properties the way these are described in Psychoactive drug. Furthermore I think nootropics focuses on other neurological reactions than the reactions that are descibed here. __meco 10:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


Excellent page and Venn diagram - was wondering whether cannabis really fits into all four major groups however. While it can certainly act as a hallucinogen and depressant (and probably as a stimulant), is there much justification for it being included as an antipsychotic? The only fact I'm aware of bearing on this is the ability of some suffering for psychotic conditions to self-medicate using cannabis; this is somewhat controversial, however, and (superficially, at least) cannabis seems to be associated with an induction of psychotic-like activity (eg paranoia). Any thoughts? --JonAyling 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the cannabidiol (CBD) constituent that gives cannabis a touch of antipsychotic edge. As most marijuana sold on the streets is bred for high THC content, it wouldn't be of much benefit in that respect, and in fact would likely make things worse due to the THC. Pure CBD has been successfully used as an antipsychotic. --Thoric 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Cannabis and THC are psychedelics and apart of this group. Is this considered an accurate classification? Or is Cannabis and THC something else or something on its own? Zachorious 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. Cannabis certainly has mind-manefesting properties, but most don't consider them on par with classic psychedelics. It produces a variety of effects, none of which are overly extreme regardless of dosage. This is not to say that none have felt overwhelmed by the effects, but again these are rarely on par with those of other substances. --Thoric 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. One thing is for sure, I almost never see hallucinations when using cannabis. The only time I do see some is when I stare at light which can produce many strange images (is there any explanation why only staring at light brings out hallucinations?). But wow, I have had a lot of intense experiences, I can only imagine how much more powerful something like LSD is. BTW, doesn't cannabis enhance or amplify parts of the brain like the psychedelics? It certainly doesn't kill brain cells and I would have thought cannabis does a bit of expanding. I have had many revelations with it and discovered many things. So what actually defines a psychedelic then? Zachorious 16:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly cannabis shares properties with the psychedelics, but is really the tip of the iceberg as far as psychedelics go. A classic psychedelic experience can involve moreso the epitome of revelation -- deep understanding and full mind -> being -> universe awareness/connection. It is dosage dependent of course. A low dose of LSD has the mind-expanding potential of a high dose of cannabis, but with much less of the incapacitation. LSD has distinctive stimulant-like properties, and can really get your mind racing, but unlike the amphetamines, psychedelics enhance the connection between all parts of the brain and really put you in touch with your unconscious mind. As you can imagine, this can be quite overwhelming, especially when there is a lot of repressed issues/emotions/memories to be unleashed. --Thoric 03:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So which is closer to the classic psychedelics, marijuana or MDMA? While marijuana maybe considered the weakest of the psychedelics (if at all) MDMA is a different kind of substance altogether. It seems a lot more like the psychomotor stimulants in that it mainly provides euphoria and speeds up your ability to react so to speak. It doesn't seem like it has the same mind-expansion abilities that even marijuana has, but then again I have never tried MDMA. It however seems more like an ultimate euphoria drug more than anything "spiritual" like the others can provide. Understand what I'm saying? Zachorious 04:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

MDMA has the effect of being entactogenic and empathogenic, a distinct property which might be called mind-altering. It also produces marked visual disturbances and what is definitely a hallucinogenic effect, oneirophrenia (however, this is not a regular effect). The reference to spirituality, I believe, hinges more on the drug's effect of inducing a frame of mind and an emotional comfort level that is conducive to spiritual encounters with other people. __meco 07:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if I would say that MDMA was closer to being a classic psychedelic than cannabis. If you look at the chart, you will see that I have placed both MDMA and cannabis (and also THC) into their own subsections. MDMA is close chemically to mescaline, but not close enough to be in the same subgroup. MDMA is also the tip of the iceberg as far as psychedelics go, but that does not mean that it hasn't had its share of life changing experiences. To muddle that up is the unfortunate fact that a great deal of "ecstacy" sold on the street contains a good deal of methamphetamine, and often little if any actual MDMA. --Thoric 16:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that the MDMA experience is nowhere near as powerful as LSD? Or is it just as powerful in a different way? Also, How does the euphoria of LSD compare to the euphoria of MDMA? What about the comparison of revelation, deep understanding, full mind, universal connection, ect. between LSD and MDMA? Zachorious 23:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparing MDMA and LSD would be like comparing a hike on a nature trail to climbing a mountain. Certainly the nature trail is a nice retreat from city life, you get to see some nature to the side of the groomed path, and perhaps meet some like-minded people, but both the risks and rewards are minimal, and it requires little in the way of preparation. Compare that to mountain climbing where you are making a full day commitment with a good deal of preparation and certainly a lot of risks along the way, but the rewards make it worth the effort. (Or so I've heard, as I haven't gone mountain climbing myself as of yet). --Thoric 16:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

So what would you compare cannabis to then (in comparison to the metaphor you used to MDMA)? Which is more intense, marijuana or MDMA? I've read that there is greater euphoria from MDMA and it may produce a more extreme experience. But cannabis seems to be more of a true hallucinogen psychedelic. Zachorious 21:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In comparison to what I said above with respect to MDMA and LSD, I would say that cannabis would be more like sitting around a campfire, drinking with friends. It's a fun and relaxing social activity, which may be subject to laughs, good conversation, goofing around, saying and/or doing embarassing things, doesn't involve much stress of physical activity. It allows time for contemplation while watching the fire, but again doesn't require all that much preparation or commitment, and doesn't include all the rewards and adventure of mountain climbing. As for hallucinogenic activity, many would argue that neither MDMA nor cannabis provide much in the way of distortion of perception. Along the same vein, there are some who would disagree with calling LSD a hallucinogen either. As for the euphoria, that is somewhat subjective. Certainly MDMA can produce a state with very low anxiety, and both cannabis and LSD can greatly enhance anxiety, so it's easy to see how less anxiety is more euphoric than more anxiety, but it isn't the key component of any of those drugs. --Thoric 23:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

MDMA is all emotional tripping, while Cannabis tends to get more philosophical and based on thoughts rather than emotions though it does bring euphoria as well, yet it also has the possibility and probability to be less deep, depending on the person. 17:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Amanita Muscaria[edit]

Where is this on the chart? Zachorious 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It is there under muscimol (and ibotenic acid. Also see muscarine which is a minor constituent, but can be responsible for some key peripheral parasympathetic effects (perspiration, salivation, lacrimation, sometimes nausea and dizziness). --Thoric 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

drug rehabilitation[edit]

Not mentioned once in the article?! not even in the links until i added it -- very strange. Even more considering this was even nominated as a featured article... --Espoo 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Drug addiction and substance abuse already had links... btw, the drug rehab article didn't wikilink back :P --Thoric 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fatal Overdose For Cacti/Mescaline[edit]

What is the fatal overdose for cacti/mescaline? How many times the normal dosage is needed to OD? Is the San Pedro Cactus/Mescaline as non-toxic as weed, shrooms and acid? Zachorious 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on equal quantities of the active alkaloid, mescaline is less toxic than psilocybin. Based on equipotent dosages mescaline is much more toxic. In more plain terms the ratio of high dose versus death of psilocybin is about 1:250. The ratio of high dose versus death of mescaline is about 1:30. Therefore mescaline is about eight times as toxic as psilocybin when speaking of equipotent dosages. Do note this is only considering these specific alkaloids. Plant material may contain any number of less studied and unknown alkaloids, that perhaps have toxic effects of their own. Based on a "normal dosage" of about 400mg for mescaline, you should have nothing to fear from taking a double, or even triple dose, but it is not recommended. While there have been reports of people taking upwards of 20 times the standard dose (i.e. 8 grams) and surviving without any known ill effects, everyone is different. When analyzing LD50 values, keep in mind these are for small lab animals (rabbits, mice, rats), and may not be the same for humans. Also remember that LD50 means that 50% of the animals died at this dosage. While it provides a good guideline for determining toxicity, you may also want to consider the LD10 and LD90 dosages. --Thoric 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychoactive drug chart[edit]

THIS IS INCREDIBLE! WHO DESIGNED THIS? Colonel Marksman 06:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

user:Thoric did and I also want to thank him for this elucidating chart, it really helped me when I began learning the subject. Let The Sunshine In 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Muscarine -- again[edit]

While the muscarine page states that it does not pass the blood brain barrier, other sources indicate that it does (although with some difficulty), and receptors certainly exist there. Apparently pilocarpine also can pass the blood brain barrier, so I suppose it should also be added to that section. Both muscarine and pilocarpine are said to, "Cross BBB to cause arousal, excitation, headache, and tremors". --Thoric 21:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the Psychoactive drug chart?[edit]

Is there any particular reason why the chart was deleted? It was a great illustration of the subtypes of psychoactive drugs. Shvender Hoot 14:12, 3 January 2007 (EST)

When was it deleted? I don't see it removed within recent history... --Thoric 16:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
When I visited the page yesterday, it was gone. Once I had posted the above message, it was back again. Shvender Hoot 13:22, 4 January 2007 (EST)


Where is this on the chart? If it isn't there it should be inserted. Zachorious 08:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I feel that the Hallucinogens bubble is completely inappropriate. It is based not on scientific facts like neuropharmacology, but on subjective effects. I therefore think that the bottom bubble is POV and may even qualify as original research.

For example, in all of the websites you cited, not one of them defines a "psychedelic" sub-class of hallucinogens. Psychedelic is a colloquial term to describe a state of mind, not a scientific term to describe a class of drugs. Dissociatives are arguably psychedelic, no less psychedelic than serotonergic drugs. A recent medical study [26] even describes the dissociative anesthetic Ketamine (an NMDA receptor antagonist) as a psychedelic.

Therefore, I think that this bottom bubble should be cleaned up and reorganized not according to subjective effects but according to neuropharmacology. "Psychedelics" should clearly be changed with "serotonergic hallucinogens," and serotonin receptor agonists should be differentiated from serotonin releasers. Drugs within "Dissociatives" should be classified likewise, with N2O, ketamine, PCP, DXM classified as NMDA receptor antagonists, Salvinorin and Ibogaine classified as kappa-opioid receptor agonists (note: Ibogaine also antagonizes NMDA receptors), and deliriants classified as anticholinergics (especially since there is a class of drugs above called cholinergics...) These classifications are based less on POV and more on hard neuroscience. Jolb 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The purpose of this chart is to provide a general overview of psychoactive substances based on common medical classifications such that it makes things more clear to the layperson. More detailed neuro-chemistry related information can be found on the specific drug page entries. Also, the term "psychedelic" is not a colloquial term, but in fact a term coined by a scientist to describe the effects of mescaline (and LSD). Meaning drift over the past 60 years has expanded it to include other similar substances, and is therefore the reason why it encompasses a larger area, but only those which are clearly not dissociatives. Lastly, deliriant is an accepted scientific term with a much more specific meaning than anticholinergic which could refer to a great number of pharmaceuticals. Also the word "deliriant" is much smaller, and fits into the space much more nicely. --Thoric 23:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has seemed to move to Thoric's user talk, and I would like to see some second opinions on this.


According to the article on atomoxetine it seems more likely that it fits under none of these catagories instead of all of them. Either that article needs to be changed or atomoxetine moved or removed.I amnotted 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the article? Here's a quote from it -- "The most common side effect in adults is drowsiness. This can be counteracted in some patients by measures as simple as a cup of coffee, or breathing exercises, while others become exhausted after a short while after taking the pills, and can sleep for up to 10+ hours. Some patients tend to feel lightheaded, dizzy, or "buzzed" as a minor side effect along with the drowsiness. To diminish these side effects, which can interfere with daytime work, study, etc., dosing time is sometimes changed to just before bed; as Strattera is long-acting, it does not "wear off" overnight. Mild hallucinations can be experienced under high doses (300mg)." -- I don't know about you, but the side effects sound a little wee bit like THC, and there are even trip reports on Erowid: [27] [28]. I placed it in the most appropriate place... and actually it could possibly be even closer to the psychedelics due to the visual effects (perhaps a little bit down and to the right). --Thoric 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You cannot categorize substances this way; like I mentioned earlier, the effects vary depending on the dosage. Alcohol may act as a stimulant on a low dose. Mirtazapine causes visuals on a high dose, but that doesn't make it a psychedelic of any sorts. Similar things could be written on all of the substances on the chart. What we need is pharmacological categories and not something based on a few user experiences. -- 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I second that. They should be classified by their action on receptors in the brain. I also cited why the classification of psychedelic is incorrect (discussion at Thoric's Talk.) Jolb 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you can group substances with similar action under the same blanket category regardless of method of action. This has been done for centuries, and is still done today. Caffeine, cocaine, methamphetamine, ephedrine and nicotine are all considered to be stimulants, yet have very different methods of action. Both cocaine and atropine are tropanes, but I would certainly not place them close together on this chart. The atomoxetine article may lump it with substances such as bupropion, but it exhibits significantly different effects. The chart on this page takes into account both a drug's therapeutic dosage, as well as its recreational dosage. Location priority is given to the major category within which it best fits, and the secondly in relation to other substances within that category. This chart has evolved over several years with a great deal of care and research put into the best possible locations. It has been reviewed by several experts in the field, and by far the greatest number of complaints come from people who have no clue what they are talking about. Lastly, I repeat that the primary function of this chart is to bring a quick visual understanding of the relation of different psychoactive substances to the average layperson. The people who take these substances via prescription or otherwise. This chart is not for neuropharmacologists even though most would approve of this chart. BTW, Jolb, I also cited why the classification of psychedelic is correct. If you and others truly hate this chart so much, then feel free to create from scratch a new one on a sub-page, and then bring motion to form a vote on which chart is preferred. --Thoric 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't hate the chart, actually I find it quite appropriate, but there's always room for improvement. Also, we don't want any pseudo-science style data in Wikipedia do we? Sometimes it seems that the locations for few of the substances on the chart are based on little tidbits read from here and there. I also do that sort of studying, but try to avoid making too many conclusions of it. It may be outdated or even bogus. -- 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain[edit]

This section is TERRIBLE. For one, it should be classified not by method of action on each receptor but by each receptor and its action on it. For example: instead of somthing like this

LSD (serotonin)
alcohol (GABA)

we should replace it with a classification like this

Serotonergic drugs
(LSD, psolocybin)
Reuptake inhibitors
(Prozac, Zoloft)

Plus, there are somethings that are COMPLETELY wrong. PCP is NOT a glutamate antagonist... It's an NMDA receptor antagonist. I'll start working on it, but I'm far from an expert on this stuff, so I'll need help. Jolb 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to edit this, so I'll put what was in the old section, for future reference:

Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain

  1. Prevent The Action Potential From Starting
    • Lidocaine, TTX (they bind to voltage-gated sodium channels, so no action potential begins even when a generator potential passes threshold)
  2. Neurotransmitter Synthesis
    • Increase - L-Dopa, tryptophan, choline (precursors)
    • Decrease - PCPA (inhibits synthesis of 5HT)
    • Causes increased sensitivity to the five senses, due to an increasing number of signals being sent to the brain.
  3. Neurotransmitter Packaging
  4. Neurotransmitter Release
  5. Agonists - Mimic the original neurotransmitters and activate the receptors
  6. Antagonists - Bind to the receptor sites and block activation
  7. Prevent ACh Breakdown
  8. Prevent Reuptake

- based on information taught in NSC 201, Vanderbilt University [citation needed]


I grouped the chart and my new classification together, and grouped history and philosophy together. That makes sense, right? I just feel like starting the article with a bunch of charts isn't very wiki-ish... Do any of you think we should put history and philosophy above the chart and the classification? Jolb 18:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Categorization dispite[edit]

Thoric and I have an ongoing debate as to the definition of "psychedelic." We've done research and cited sources so that other people can come and a consensus can be reached as to whether the definition of "psychedelic" is too stringent. Please participate in this discussion. Jolb 17:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

New Chart[edit]

I learned how to make a table and I added this one that makes the classification of drugs by neurotransmitter much more visually appealing. Do you like it? Jolb 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

While I like the neurotransmitter chart, I do not think it should replace the existing chart. There is no reason we cannot have both. --Thoric 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean that at all! The Venn diagram is great. I was just replacing the stupid one I'd made before with a bunch of indents. Jolb 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ahh, gotcha :) The tablized version is much easier to read. --Thoric 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Narcotics... And the drug chart[edit]

Okay, so what I'm getting from this is that hydrocodone is more potent than heroin and oxycodone? I don't think so. I'm not sure if this is being misinterpreted, if it is a mistake on the drug chart, or maybe even something else. The 'rule' for the depressents in the chart is that they increase in potency towards the lower right, and hydrocodone is much lower, and spaced much farther to the right than both heroin and oxycodone. So... clarification on this? Anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

Depressants in the chart generally increase in potency towards the lower right. Placement within items closely grouped are subject to aesthetic constraints as well. If you have a suggestion for rearrangement that works better, please let me know. --Thoric 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, okay then. No suggestions, I guess it's fine. But now I need to make sure: Morphine is more powerful than oxycodone, which in turn is more powerful than hydrocodone, right?

Technically, when taken orally, they are all roughly equal in pain-killing potency, but slightly different in effects. Of the three, oxycodone is the least sedating, and thought to possibly have the highest abuse potential when available in pure formations (i.e. not mixed with acetaminophen). --Thoric 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That's not correct. When taken parenterally, they are all equal in potency. when taken orally, morphine has a sixth of its potency and hydro and oxycodone have third of their potency, i.e., when taken orally, oxycodone and hydrocodone are twice as potent as morphine. Let The Sunshine In 12:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Don’t you mean the other way around? If morphine is 12 times as potent as codeine, and one 30mg codeine pill is equal to one 5mg hydrocodone pill, then that would mean that one 2.5mg morphine pill is equal to one 5mg hydrocodone pill. Therefore, wouldn’t morphine be twice as potent as hydrocodone?

Maybe you're right. I know that oxycodone is more effective orally then morphine. Let The Sunshine In 19:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you know?

I know that 30mg of codeine (plus 325mg acetaminophen and 30mg of caffeine -- i.e. what's in a single Tylenol #3) is no where near as effective in controlling pain as 5mg of oxycodone (plus 325mg acetaminophen -- i.e. what's in a single Percocet). Percocet is most definitely a significant step up from Tylenol #3. As for the drowsiness factor... the 30mg of codeine (even with the 30mg of caffeine) would be make you more sleepy than the 5mg of oxycodone. Basically codeine is far more effective at making you sleep than controlling your pain -- and if your desire is to sleep (yet you are in pain), codeine is not good enough at killing the pain to let you get to sleep. --Thoric 23:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say oxycodone, I said hydrocodone. But you could be right anyways. However, I still haven't really gotten a clear answer on the morphine>oxycodone issue.

Almost like I said before, when taken parenterally (e.g. intraveneously) they have the same potency, when taken orally morphine has 6th of its potency and oxycodone have half of his potency, i.e. orally, oxycodone is 3 times as potent as morphine. [29] Let The Sunshine In 12:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2C Family On The Drug Chart[edit]

If the 2C family was on the drug chart, would they be above or below Mescaline and/or DOM? Zachorious 16:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me explain from the basics... You might already know everything I'm saying, but bear with me.
According to this 2006 paper [30] by a German scientist, "Only little information is available on pharmacological and toxicological properties of the members of the 2C-series, but it is known, that they show affinity to 5-HT2 receptors, and act as agonists or antagonists at different receptor subtypes."
So we obviously know that the 2Cs are regular serotonergic hallucinogens like LSD, mescaline, and DMT.
However, unlike LSD and DMT, 2Cs are referred to as "phenthylamines," which means that they're more closely related to mescaline and DOM than drugs like psilocybin, LSD, DMT, and AMT. Therefore, you're right in assuming the 2C's should go with mescaline and DOM.
Now, on Thoric's chart, LSD and psilocybin are closer to the "hallucinogens" header while mescaline and DOM are closer to the "stimulants" header. However, these stimulant effects of hallucinogens are unpredictable and vary from user to user. There's no well-understood chemical pathway that causes users to experience CNS stimulation. (My opinion is that the stimulant effects are a result of the visuals caused by the drugs.) Therefore, if the 2C's were to be put on this chart, they would be with DOM and mescaline, but it doesn't really matter whether they're above, below, left, right, etc. In fact, I really see no reason why LSD and psilocybin are below the phenthylamines. All those serotonergic hallucinogens could really be anywhere within that cyan overlap, so long as the three groups stay together: phenthylamines (like mescaline, DOM, and 2C's), indole hallucinogens (like psilocybin and LSD), and tryptamines (like DMT and AMT).
So to answer your question, "would they be above or below Mescaline and/or DOM?", the answer is: it doesn't really matter. As long as the 2C's are grouped with those other phenthylamines, they can be in any order. Jolb 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In proximity to MDMA, mescaline would be closer to MDMA than say 2C-B, since mescaline is more chemically similar to MDMA. So wouldn't mescaline be higher since it shares such a close similarity? Zachorious 03:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To my mind, that chart is more based on subjective effects rather than chemical structure. So chemical structure isn't always indicative of subjective effects.

The chart is based on best fit based on a few criteria. Primary placement is based upon general drug class (i.e. what distinctive region it should go in). For hallucinogens, subjective effects play a much larger role, but chemical structure is still taken into account, and this is why mescaline is placed closer to MDMA. As for the stimulant properties of certain hallucinogens, a good deal of this is tied in with their anxiety inducing effects. As to the answer to your question regarding the hallucinogenic phenthylamines, I would say that they could belong between mescaline and MDMA because they are shorter acting, but perhaps better slightly up and to the right of mescaline since there is more space there, and also so as not to interfere with the "closeness" of mescaline and MDMA. Also, it would be preferable only to add substances to the chart which are (or were) of somewhat common use. --Thoric 15:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Diagram disputed[edit]

I placed a disputed-section tag on the Venn diagram. First of all, the way it is laid out, there is no way for a substance to belong to two opposite categories without belonging to a third or all. That alone should raise red flags. Moreover, many of the classifications are very inaccurate and they all need to be reliably sourced. For example, there is nothing in psilocybin indicating that it has any stimulant properties. There is noting in MDMA indicating that it is an antipsychotic. It's a nice looking diagram, but very inaccurate. BenB4 10:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It's only inaccurate to those who have not taken the time to read the legend, and realize that only the non-overlapping areas should be considered to be classified as the label of that primary region. For as many disputes over placements on the chart there have been accolades -- I've put a list of the accolades on my talk page. The diagram also isn't a pure "Venn diagram", it is really a Venn/Spectrum hybrid, but that is besides the point. Psilocybin most certainly does cause CNS stimulation. I invite you try and sleep on a strong dose of it. MDMA is not listed as an "antipsychotic", but it can have an anti-depressant sort of effect. You must first read the current set of disputes and responses to the chart. BTW, for your information, the chart has been presented to a significant number of experts in the drug field, and they have had nothing but good things to say about it. --Thoric 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The article says it's a Venn diagram. The legend says that magenta, where MDMA is, represents "Stimulants, Psychedelic hallucinogens and Antipsychotics" although there is not a whit of evidence suggesting that MDMA has any antipsychotic properties. Cyan, containing psilocybin and LSD, is described as "Overlap of Stimulants and Psychedelic hallucinogens" -- yet where is the evidence that they are stimulants? The articles for LSD and psilocybin say nothing of the sort.
That diagram is frequently disputed, but Thoric, its author, is extremely stubborn. I have even gone into an unproductive mediation with Thoric about that chart. If you look through this talk page, there are many disputes about the chart.
They are also many accolades. --Thoric 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that Thoric cite each and every substance's placement on the chart. For every drug on the chart, there should be a citation (or two) that explicitly states something like, for example, "GHB is a strong depressant and a mild hallucinogen." That would make every bit of information on the chart verifiable and would eliminate Thoric's obvious POV. Jolb 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
They are well over 100 drugs on this chart. You are requesting that the chart directly reference a few hundred citations? Are you insane? --Thoric 17:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
For at least the "antipsycotics" outside of the pink area, I am going to have to insist on it. I am skeptical that there is any evidence that any of them are referred to as antipsycotics by reliable sources. It is clear the chart is filled with errors. Click on atomoxetine, for example, supposedly a member of all four categories, and it clearly states in the first sentence that it's not a stimulant. How about alcohol, as any party-goer will attest (as will its article) has stimulant properties at low doses while being a CNS depressant -- it's shown to the right (more of a depressant) than opium, for goodness sake. You've claimed that the chart has been reviewed by several authorities. I would like to see the text of those reviews, please. BenB4 18:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, "antipsychotics" outside of the pink area are not pure/true antipsychotics, but drugs that help relieve OCD-related symptoms. Antipsychotics are often prescribed along with antidepressants, and sometimes interchangeably. Items in the horizontal-center of the chart are not necessarily stimulants or depressants. This chart is balanced such that items in the middle may exhibit behaviors of both, or possibly neither category. Alcohol is most definitely medically classified as a depressant -- any medical text will attest to this. Any stimulant-like feelings are from socializing at a party and/or the reduced inhibitions not from the alcohol itself. Also, if you would please read the legend, you will find that depressants get more potent down and right. Again I request that you read the legend as well as the rest of the old arguments on this page before repeating arguments which I have already countered in the past. Lastly, the reviews I have mentioned have been informal and in person, so unfortunately there is no text. --Thoric 18:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If it is not a Venn diagram, the article shouldn't claim that it is. If the large circle labeled "antipsychotics" only contains antipsychotics where it doesn't intersect anything else, then it should have a different label. Since alcohol isn't listed as a stimulant as well as a depressant when it is well documented and nearly universal knowledge that it's both, even as it is the most commonly used psychoactive drug, this indicates that the diagram simply hasn't been thought through. With a mistake like that -- and no documentation -- how do you expect me to believe you when you say the chart has been reviewed by authorities? Again, each classification is unsourced, the labels are inaccurate, and the diagram as a whole is misleading. Will you please remove it from the article until you can address these serious problems? If not, in accordance with WP:V, I will remove it. BenB4 18:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
BenB4, you are demanding that Thoric invokes a reliable source for each drug to support its placement in the diagram, and then you cite a Wikipedia article with the implication that the information you are presenting is "well documented"? In fact, the section of the article that you cited doesn't even cite any source to support the statement that alcohol stimulates the brain. (The wording of that section seems misleading, as I have an inclination to believe that every drug stimulates some part of the brain in some way.) However, it is wise to cite a reliable source to support every drug's placement. That is the Wikipedia way, non? We shouldn't be so rash as to remove the diagram altogether until that goal is achieved, but we should all work toward collaborating on finding reliable sources for these drugs. I will begin working toward that end now. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I originally had it labeled as a Venn-Spectral hybrid, but someone changed it. The sections are properly labeled in the legend, as I keep pointing out. Alcohol is not any more of a stimulant than heroin is as both drugs can cause some perceived stimulation in low doses. The labels are based on standard medical classifications. This diagram has been in this article for years, and I have addressed these issues many times. How about you remove yourself instead until you have the courtesy to at least read past discussions before reiterating that which has already been resolved. Also, enough people are involved with this that it would have to be put to a proper vote before being removed. --Thoric 19:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Alcohol is recognized as a stimulant in the peer-reviewed medical literature and has been recognized as such since at least the 1970s (PMID 4350944). The fact that you would resort to personal attacks instead of considering that you might be wrong speaks volumes about your ability to objectively evaluate the diagram. I sense that there are some very serious WP:OWN issues here, and I will invite third opinions from other watchers of this article for a few days before deciding how to proceed. BenB4 19:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Saying that you don't know what you are talking about is not a "personal attack" as I was not attacking anything specific to your person. Alcohol is not actually classified as a stimulant in any medical text despite studies describing how it exhibits stimulation in some people. Regardless, if alcohol truly is such a stimulant, then perhaps it may belong closer to the center of the chart, but do note that most medical texts classify alcohol as a sedative-hypnotic drug, and this is what my placement of alcohol is based on -- cited medical classification. --Thoric 19:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroids and Testosterone[edit]

Where would anabolic steroids and Testosterone be on the graph. I guessing they are near amphetamines, cocaine, khat, and ritalin. Zachorious 16:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that steroids and sex hormones are considered to be psychoactive drugs. --Thoric 17:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but they are drugs that alter the body. How much distinction is there between psychoactives vs non-psychoactives? Some anabolic steroid users get angry more easier after use......isn't this a psychoactive effect in some way? Zachorious 11:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the opening sentence. "A psychoactive drug or psychotropic substance is a chemical substance that acts primarily upon the central nervous system where it alters brain function, resulting in temporary changes in perception, mood, consciousness and behavior." Also, look at this one: "Psychoactive drugs operate by temporarily affecting a person's neurochemistry." Even though steroids alter people's moods, they aren't psychoactive since they don't act on the central nervous system and they don't alter any neurotransmitter/receptor system. Even if the substance crosses the blood-brain barrier, it has to affect a neurotransmitter system to be considered a psychoactive drug.
For example, oxygen, glucose, and water can cross the blood-brain barrier, and sudden spikes or decreases of any of them can induce unconsciousness (a change in perception), but they aren't considered psychoactive because they don't affect any neurotransmitter function. Jolb 14:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Diagram compromise?[edit]

How about moving the diagram to Classification of psychoactive drugs where its nuances and deficiencies can be explained in detail, and the other classifications which have been suggested here, e.g., #Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain, can also be included? BenB4 18:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

While this is something worth considering, it would be a shame to remove the diagram as it provides links to about 100 other psychoactive drug articles. --Thoric 19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to see the links left in, say in a tabular format by their general classification. Many if not all of them are linked from the previous section. BenB4 19:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a factual dispute about the positioning of a handful of the drugs on the chart is best served by removing the whole chart. It may be appropriate to remove specific items of dispute on the chart until a placement is agreed upon. The chart as a whole is invaluable to the article, its wholesale removal to fix a few problems would be like removing one's arm as a method of trimming one's fingernails. -- stillnotelf is invisible 00:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not about a few drugs, its about the fact that the chart is arbitrary and nonscientific. All the drugs which overlap into the antipsychotic area (i.e. all apart from the antipsychotics) are wrong - none have an antipsychotic effect and some have a pro-psychotic effect {cannabis, buproprion) for starters. SSRIs often cause agitation but work in a completely different way to other stimulants. The chart doesn't correspond to many important classifications - narcotics and sedatives lumped together etc. So ultimately there is so much that is grossly wrong with the chart it should be removed - fixingthe antipsychotics would mean a big pink circle overlapping a bit with depressants off to the side - not a venn diagram at all. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I have citations of SSRIs being classified as stimulants. Remember caffeine is a stimulant just as amphetamines are, so they don't all have to work in the exact same way. Narcotics and sedatives are both CNS depressants. --Thoric 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, some people may find SSRIs cause agitation, some can cause sedation too. In any case their main effect occurs over weeks and months. If SSRIs are stimulants on this diagram you may as well put quetiapine in with diphenhydramine as its acute effect is antihistaminergic and anticholinergic. This is what I mean about the arbitrary nature of the diagram.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
This chart is based on primary acute effects, not long-term effects, and not minor side effects. All drugs have different effects after long term usage, and almost all drugs result in a tolerance build-up against their primary acute effects. As for quetiapine, it may have some anticholinergic effects, but its primary effect is that of an antipsychotic. If you give quetiapine to someone who is on a drug like LSD, it will drastically reduce the LSD effects. An antihistamine will not have the same effect. The other reason the antihistamines are grouped with the more serious anticholinergics is because they are somewhat commonly abused for their hallucinogenic effects. As for the SSRIs, their acute effects are most certainly stimulating as when compared to tetracyclic as well as tricyclic antidepressants. --Thoric 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore - if antipsychotics get a 'circle' why not antidepressants - tricyclics have sedative effects but also antihistamine (like diphenhydramine) as do many antipsychotics like olanzapine..but the antihistamines don't overlap with the sedating drugs. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Anti-depressants are a lesser breed of anti-psychotic -- they help to stabilize ones mood, and combat OCD-type symptoms. They do not need their own circle as most everything that is part of the anti-psychotic circle and overlaps with other circles has an anti-depressant effect. As for the antihistamines, they are not true depressants despite their initial sedating effects. They are derived from anticholinergics, and hence have an anticholinergic effect, which does not increasingly depress the central nervous system as the dosage is increased, but instead causes an unusual dissociated zombie waking-dream state akin to sleepwalking. --Thoric 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Antipsychotics and antidepressants have very different effects and treat very different problems. Some antipsychotics such as thiothixene, olanzapine and thioridazine seem to have some added mood effect but no antidepressant has an antipsychotic effect.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
All antipsychotics affect the mood -- most do not brighten the mood. Perhaps "antipsychotic" is not the most appropriate label for the pink circle, but labels the top end of the spectrum, of which "hallucinogen" is the polar opposite. Clinical depression is a serious mental disorder, and if you've ever heard of psychotic depression, perhaps you may change your mind a little on really how far off it is from delusional disorders. You seem to be a quite knowledgeable fellow, and I hope we can find some common ground here. --Thoric 15:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Ummm..antipsychotics work on mood only by making people feel happier once they are less tormented by psychotic symptoms. They work completely differently to antidepressants - eg they work on blockade of dopamine and (with some drug) serotonin, whereas SSRI antidepressants work on increasing the amount of serotonin by blocking reuptake. There is some concern that they may induce mania too. Yes, there are conditions which have both depression and psychosis (eg schizoaffective disorder and psychotic depression) and in the main when they occur each drug is prescribed to treat the indication -hence the use of an antidepressant for the mood component and an antipsychotic for the psychotic component. Yes we can find common ground - having groups is good, I just think these groupings are too general and many of the overlaps are plain wrong. Why not lists or paragraphs?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Currently accepted medical classifications already group substances with different actions. As I mentioned before, amphetamines and xanthines are both stimulants, yet have different method of action. Likewise opioids and benzos have very different methods of action, yet are both depressants. All I am saying is that antidepressants, antipsychotics and even the sedative-hypnotics can all be lumped into another general grouping of mood stabilizers / brighteners. Again, perhaps "antipsychotic" isn't the best label for this, as it only represents the far end of the spectrum. --Thoric 04:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the problem: many of the labels have problems - opioids and benzos are generally described/classed as analgesics and sedatives respectively - indicating their main uses and actions. Yes, opiates (and alcohol) have a depressant effect but no more significantly than numerous other drugs on this chart including all with antihistaminergic and antcholinergic actions. it is entirely arbitrary to have opioids in this category and the others not. Similarly benzos have no specific antipsychotic effect. The chart is pretty and clearly alot of work has gone into it to synthesize a global picture of psychoactive drugs and while an admirable effort it is just too far off the mark. Incidentally yes I am a doctor (actually a psychiatrist) so am very familiar with almost all of the things on the chart. The tragedy is that a truly accurate and helpful article wouldn't be that much more complicated - unfortunately a Venn diagram cannot capture the spectrum i'm afraid. I generally avoid editing psych-related articles on wikipedia because I feel conflicted and hate to feel like I'm "pulling rank" on people....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Everything in the "depressant" section is already clinical classified as a depressant, and all are substances which continue to depress the CNS until the result is death. As for benzos, they were traditionally referred to as "minor tranquilizers" when what we now call "typical antipsychotics" were called "major tranquilizers". Such a naming convention implies a similar purpose -- to impart tranquility. As I mentioned before, the anticholinergics (and antihistaminergics) are in a separate section due to their ability to cause delirium. At low doses they are sedating, but as dosage is increased the effect is quite unique, and very far from what one would consider tranquil. The original concept version of the chart did not integrate the antipsychotic section: Image:Drug_Chart_version_1.0.png --Thoric 00:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Diazepam and narcotics can also cause or contribute to a delirious state in the medically ill so they are not as distinct from anticholinergics as one might think. The main effect of anticholinergics or antihistaminergics is sedating and hence sleep -sometimes tehy may cause a delirium if alot are taken. It isn't as black and white as all that. many people use antihistamines as over-the-counter sedatives. As I said almost no doctors would use this depressant category as outlined here. Narcotics are not used for sedation in hospitals for a variety of reasons.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, mood stabilizers are mentioned under psych meds, yet they are not on the chart at all (if left off this should be explained anyway).cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless such substances are considered to be psychoactive drugs, they likely have no place on the chart. Some could be added to the antipsychotic region if deemed appropriate. --Thoric 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
One of the most important effects is the dopamine-mediated euphoria of many recreational drugs yet it is completely ignored in this diagram. I suppose it could stretch across in a big 'Y' shape or something.
This chart does not plot euphoria, and I doubt it could be adequately plotted to everyone's agreement. Some people obtain euphoria from drugs that other people obtain dysphoria from and vice-versa. The point of the chart was to plot drug classifications in relation to each other to make it easy and clear to see their effects. The average person couldn't tell you the difference between crack (cocaine), crank (amphetamines), smack (heroin), acid (LSD) or pot (cannabis) besides that they are all illegal drugs. This chart provides a clear picture for the lay-person. --Thoric 06:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to just barge in here, but regardless of the accuracy of the diagram or how well it is sourced, isn't it still original research? I would think it would just be inappropriate unless it was published somewhere else first.--Margareta 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. Images/diagrams do not follow the policy as strictly (see Wikipedia:OR#Original_images). If Wikipedia was only allowed to use images published elsewhere, then we would also need to secure the unrestricted rights to use those images. As for the chart, it does not introduce any new information. It merely displays information already published elsewhere. --Thoric 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the diagram is question is qualitatively different from the excepted "images" as discussed in the link you provided. E.g., "images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments" and "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed." The sort of schematic you've done isn't the same as uploading a photo of Timothy Leary or a diagram of neurotransmission. Don't get me wrong, I like the diagram, and I bet that (if it's fully sourced) you might be able to get it published somewhere else, and then come back and post it here. But I just don't think it falls under the "broad exception" for straightforward images.--Margareta 14:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a very basic problem with this diagram: it is simply not possible to cluster all classes of psychoactive drugs with their different and often multiple mechanisms of actions and properties into such a simplistic diagram of similarities - even if more circles and sub-circles were added.

Beside these strong and fundamental concerns, the diagram is arbitrary and genuine original research and clearly violates the Wikipedia:Original_research policy. The suggested similarities of drug classes are not independently verifiable and violate the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. It is the personal project of Thoric and he has put much effort into it over the past two years or so to enhance it and to adjust it to criticism, thereby proving the original research aspect. He is, and always was, very eloquent at defending it against criticism and deletion requests. Most critics including me simply gave up. His de facto ownership of the diagram is something that should be avoided per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy.

I suggest the deletion of the diagram in its current form. It should be replaced in a form that does not suggest non-existing similarities. The diagram has no place in the Wikipedia article space, including any subpage (as suggested above), and the only acceptable compromise would be to move it into Thoric's user space or to an external website. Thoric: please do not take this personally, I very much appreciate your work here and value your broad knowledge in this field. Cacycle 23:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have seen Venn diagrams like this representing CNS drugs before, published in peer-reviewed literature. So there are reliable sources for most of the information. The main problem that I have with this one is that it appears to possibly be combining information from multiple versions, as well as to have somewhat 'evolved' over time as one wiki editor's "personal project." If that is the case, then it would be a pretty clear cut case of a violation of the original research policy. But overall, I do like the diagram, although there are some minor tweaks to work out (alcohol, for example, should not be on the extreme end of the depressant side as it is pictured -- should be moved closer to the middle, overlapping with some stimulant activity; I'm not sure I'd put it in the antipsychotic or hallucinogenic circles, though, so maybe the overlapping of the circles needs to be examined). Again, the biggest issue with the diagram is that the information needs to come from a reliable source, and we can't use wikipedia to publish our own thoughts and opinions on the matter. Dr. Cash 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless the diagram in the source is identical to Thoric's, it is still original research and should be removed. 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Diagram references[edit]

I suggest we put diagram specific references on their own subpage: Talk:Psychoactive_drug/diagram_references --Thoric 19:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we move the diagram off the page until it is fully referenced, please? BenB4 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The diagram has been in the article for over two years, and has already gone through reference requests to meet the satisfaction of previous requests. It is only right and fair for the diagram to remain during a fair period of time to collect references to satisfy your requirements. I, and others will place a collection of specific quoted references within the subpage I created above to keep clutter to a minimum. Upon completion the quoted references can be located to the talk page of the diagram template, and the citations themselves (sans quoted text) can be appended to the references section of this article. This is not an unreasonable request, and is in line with established Wikipedia practices. --Thoric 23:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Fundamental policies are WP:V and WP:OR which at present the diagram utterly fails, as you admit by this attempt to find references. That you have put lots of work into it and that it has been in the article for a long time means nothing -- there are no such "established Wikipedia practices." I showed you multiple peer-reviewed medical journal articles more than a week ago indicating that alcohol is a stimulant and you have made no attempt to correct that error. I have pointed out other questionable classifications, which you said you could references for but have not. You told me that I don't know what I'm talking about, and them you claimed that wasn't a personal attack. In response to my polite request to move the diagram until it is referenced, you respond with this appeal to authorities which do not exist. I am removing the diagram, and I will continue to remove it until it satisfies WP:V. BenB4 23:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The diagram already has several references (five specific and authoritative peer reviewed published sources), therefore it cannot be considered to be unsourced. I (and others) have offered to provide additional specific references to meet your requirements. These will be provided, but you will cease and desist your unwarranted actions. --Thoric 23:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:V. Several people complained about the diagram during the recent FAC. Saying there is no support for its removal is an outright lie. BenB4 00:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Complaints are not support for removal. Proper procedure would either be to allow reasonable time to meet your requests, or to put it to a vote. Looking over the complaints versus the compliments, it appears that the complaints are in minority. -BD
WP:V clearly states, "Editors adding or restoring material that has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must provide a reliable published source, or the material may be removed." The diagram can be replaced when it is referenced and the multiple errors (e.g., alcohol not being a stimulant, the "anti-psychotics" region including non-antipsychotics, etc.) During the last FAC review four out of the five people to leave comments objected to the diagram. BenB4 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo agrees that content shouldn't be removed arbitrarily solely because it is inadequately sourced unless it is libel against a person. While there may be four or five people here who believe the diagram should be removed, the fact that about a dozen people have complimented the diagram, including a request from the Florida Office of Drug Control for a printable copy should not be overlooked so rashly. --Thoric 07:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
How's about we leave the chart on there and instead of deleting it repeatedly, we give Thoric and anyone else time to put references on the Talk:Psychoactive drug/diagram references. One week sound good? On that page, we should make a section for each drug/group of drugs on the diagram. If any of them are disputed, we'll discuss each one there in detail. I'm sure once we collect appropriate citations, we can correct and reorganize the chart to be more correct, and we'll also have a dump for all the citations so that we can transfer them back onto the chart. Agreed? Jolb 05:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The errors should be corrected and the citations verified first, in accordance with policies. Doesn't it bother you that there is a huge circle labeled "antipsychotics" with most of the things inside it not antipsychotics? BenB4 16:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
There are four "huge" circles. The overlapping areas signify a crossover point between spectrums punctuated with the different colors indicated. The top (pink) region of the antipsychotic circle contains antipsychotics. The lower overlapping regions contain other agents which tend to help to improve or stabilize mood. --Thoric 16:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the whole diagram (while it seems neat), is playing far too much into the parts of the brain that likes to categorise things.--Limegreen 07:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
That's no justification for an edit war! Let's just leave the article without it until we sort the whole thing out. Jolb 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Far and away the best solution would be for Thoric to complete a comprehensive literature review to underpin the chart and publish it in a peer-reviewed source. It would look fantastic on his CV, and would remove most of the lingering doubt over this. --Limegreen 10:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the arugment against the chart is clear and simple: while Thoric may be able to provide citations for his placement of various drugs on the chart, the fact remains that he created this chart from scratch, without reference to a previously existing chart or classification system. This makes the chart an original synthesis of other research, and thus itself original research. I agree with the above poster - get it published in a pharmacology journal or text, and then it will be acceptable (and citable!) content. Steve carlson 19:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Psilocybin Should Be Below AMT[edit]

Psilocybin seems chemically closer to DMT than it does to AMT. Just look at the molecules. Shouldn't Psilocybin be below AMT? Zachorious 10:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I expect you mean that DMT should be switched with AMT on the chart? Psilocybin is similar in structure to DMT, but it is also more similar in effect to LSD than to DMT or AMT, so I would prefer not to move psilocybin away from LSD. The chart is edited under Template:Psychoactive drugs. --Thoric 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC) --- After more reading about AMT, it seem perhaps it should be relocated (up) due to its stimulant and MAOI properties. --Thoric 21:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Diagram removal[edit]

I seriously object to the removal of the diagram. It has been in this article for over two years, and does currently include several referenced citations. For this reason, I do not feel it should be removed without first allowing reasonable time to produce adequate citations to satisfy those calling for its removal. WP:V's section on burden of evidence refers to WP:CS which states: "If it is doubtful but not harmful to the whole article, use the {{fact}} tag to ask for source verification". This diagram (which has received numerous compliments and accolades) cannot be considered "harmful" to the article. I understand that this material has been challenged, but procedure does not call for immediate removal of non-harmful material. --Thoric 20:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Though I backed up BenB4 in his removal of the diagram, I am leaning towards inclusion at this point with appropriate fact, or citation tag, or some other disclaimer, that the diagram is undergoing sourcing efforts. I am curious though, would the diagram need to be copied to it's own seperate page for cites? It seems like including the citations on the diagram itself within the article might be too much clutter. In short, I would like to see this diagram included as long as we can overcome original research concerns. R. Baley 21:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we should figure out how to overcome the large circle labeled antipsychotics which contains mostly non-antipsychotics first and foremost. As it stands, that represents just a huge number of factual errors. BenB4 04:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly - I only realised this diagram has been contentious since 2005 - there are several previous arguments about it on this talk page. There won't be a ref found for antidepressants as antipsychotics because there isn't one, similarly cannabis' place, the antihistamines, which drugs are arbitrarily considered to have depressant properties etc etc etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
According to policy, the diagram should have been tagged with {{Refimprovesect}}, because is does have references already. Also, you can't just make a statement like "there won't be a ref found", because there are references, and I'm currently in the process of building a large collection of supporting references for you people. Nothing which I placed on the chart was arbitrary. --Thoric 16:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Policy in WP:V is that unreferenced material should be removed. BenB4 18:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you examine the policy more closely, older wikipedia material (i.e. stuff that has been in place for years) is not recommended to be removed, and is recommended to request references first. Also, the diagram is not unreferenced as there are already references in place, and I am adding additional ones for you. I truly do not feel that you have read anything I have written. --Thoric 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No, that is an abject lie. There is nothing of the sort in the policy. It clearly states that, "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" without regard to the age of the material. I will continue to remove it as original research in violation of both WP:OR and WP:V. BenB4 20:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly, this should be decided by a request for comment. I invite Thoric to create one so that I can not be accused of skewing it. BenB4 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Thoric... I feel the chart COULD be sourced, so it's not WP:V or WP:OR. It is unreferenced, and it is dubious, but it is NOT harmful, so it shouldn't be removed without giving Thoric time to cite sources. Instead, it should have {{fact}} and {{disputed}} tags, but it should not be removed unless we eventually deem it harmful or unverifyable.
We can work on it by discussing any disputed placements at Talk:Psychoactive drug/diagram references. Once we discuss them, we can eventually add all the citations that are dumped on that page, and therefore make it thoroughly cited and wiki-acceptable. If Thoric does not provide adequate sources after, say, a week or two, we should remove the chart. Jolb 19:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It does have sources, just apparently not adequate sources, so it falls under the "needs more references" category. Please see WP:RFV, which addresses exactly this sort of situation -- in fact this particular disagreement is part of the reason for improvement in this policy (see Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Wikipedia:Requests_for_verification_2). --Thoric 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
No there is no way that the diagram could be sourced! Thoric readily admits that most of the drugs inside the "ANTIPSYCOTICS" circle are unmistakably not antipsychotics. There is no reference in the world that is going to support those dozens of factual errors. After more than a week of presenting multiple peer-reviewed medical sources which clearly state that alcohol is a stimulant as well as a depresant, no effort whatsoever has been made to correct that mistake. I must insist that the WP:V and WP:OR policies be followed and will not cease removing the diagram until this matter is resolved by RFC, which I invite anyone on the other side to create so that I may not be accused of biasing it. I note that this diagram has been challenged several times in the talk archives. BenB4 20:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello? BenB4? Are you purposely ignoring everything I write? Did you go and see the sources I cited here? Did you read anything which I wrote recently? I also explained to you that this diagram represents a spectrum of effects, and that only the top, non-intersecting portion of the chart contains pure anti-psychotics. If you are going to request anything, request a WP:RFV. I have cited references, so you are not following proper procedure because this diagram is not "unreferenced". --Thoric 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I note that you have resorted to citations such as to oppose my peer-reviewed medical sources, and have found no peer-reviewed citations in support of your position that alcohol isn't a stimulant as well as a depressant. The section in question clearly states that the diagram is a Venn diagram -- and your idea of a "spectrum" of antipsychotics is not supported by any of the sources you have cited. If you do not create a RFC in two days, I will, and I'm not going to listen to any complaints about it being biased if I have to do it. BenB4 21:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thoric the diagram very clearly shows a spectrum - the problem is that it is very selective in what it shows and the only reason for this incorrect selectiveness is to make this diagram work. The design of the diagram is such that there is no way it can come anywhere near to accurately depicting the relationships between these compounds because of the diversity of effects. Because of that it is extremely misleading and possibly dangerous. Suggesting that cannabis is an antipsychotic when there is medical literature suggesting otherwise - suggesting sedating drugs which can potentiate alcohol (which includes all the drugs with anticholinergic or antihistaminergic effects) are not depressants are two areas where there could be some mishap I could see. I agree that an RFC is appropriate.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure which incorrect selectiveness you are referring to. Most of the items are located based on their standard medical classifications. While antihistamines are used as non-prescription sleep aids, they are not comparable to the "sleeping pills" of the past (i.e. barbiturates), and are not as dangerous to mix with alcohol. Cannabis is not labeled as an anti-psychotic on the chart. Cannabidiol is. Perhaps some things need adjustment, but I don't believe the diagram requires removal at this point. --Thoric 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll summarise; of the 95 compounds on the chart I have a problem with the placement of 40 of them (5 true antipsychotics which are also significantly sedating, all 23 drugs which overlap into the antipsychotic section none of which are antipsychotic and 5 are recorded as potentially psychotogenic (the - proprions and the MDA group, I'll concede cannibidiol for the moment as I am not too familiar with that), and the arbitary placement of 4 deliriants outside the depressant group while 8 narcotic analgesics are inside the group. I repeat - you've done alot of work and attempting to conceptualise and graph out thse things is good but this cannot be done t his way.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Bupropion is only psychotogenic in high doses. It is prescribed as an anti-depressant, and is less likely to cause psychosis than amphetamines. I personally know a schizophrenic who is prescribed bupropion (at bedtime of all things). Technically all the stimulants (including SSRIs) are capable of inducing psychosis if abused, but then some antipsychotics can also make things worse (supersensitivity psychosis). As for the narcotics, they are by definition depressants, why do they not belong within the depressant group? Perhaps the deliriants do belong in overlap with the depressants. I'm not opposed to moving things around, or even modifying the orientation and/or design of the chart (i.e. maybe it should really be one big square plotting an X-Y axis of stimulation-sedation and antipsychotic-hallucinogen). --Thoric 19:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
OK - narcotics are no more depressants than many anticholinergics and antihistaminergics and their primary use is not sedation but analgesia - hence the fact that they are in this circle and others not is subjective. I would colour code according to effect and then have a table listing drugs under appropriate headings of main effects with additional added on somehow.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


The drug chart contains both valid and factual information and unreferenced-disputed information. Sign your name using 4 tildes (~~~~) next to a bullet point. The decision to add or remove the diagram will be made on the merits of the arguments and not by counting votes. Diagram will remain removed until a consensus has been reached to restore it. If there is a template for a poll, please replace this with the template.

I don't support this poll and I don't think we should go by these ^^^^ stupid rules.Jolb 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree it isn't optimal but we now have an extremely lengthy debate on the topic where valid points are being lost.How does one wade through the above to get consensus. An important step is to consider what an alternative should be cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This poll is premature, if people want the chart in, they need to make sure it is completely accurate (as attributed to verifiable and reliable sources). In the end, that's what will determine if it's included or not. I backed off a little earlier because I saw an editor getting discouraged about something it looked like he/she put a good deal of work into, on a diagram which had been here a while, and probably will cause little damage if included another week or two (esp. after 2 yrs?). But if it can't be sourced, and quickly, it won't matter what a poll concludes, or that an outside group requests and creams over likes it, it will have to go (or stay gone, whichever). R. Baley 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
What? Have to be registered? What for? Just take the diagram out. It's clearly interfering with FA review. 05:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It is not the only thing that the FA review pointed out, so all focus doesn't have to be upon it alone. Also, according to guidelines the chart shouldn't be removed because: 1) It does have some sources cited, thus it is not considered to be "unsourced", at worst it can be considered to be poorly or inadequately sourced. 2) It is not advised to remove unsourced content that does not harm the article. 3) Articles written before 2006 are not subject to the same regulations as newly added material. --Thoric 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont know why i put that, if you want take it out, i don't mind. but there might be sockpuppeting, or whatever it is called.All.ya.little.triksters 05:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

ANyways I am tired of wikipedia and im leaving it for good. I dont really care what you do about the chart or the poll or anything, although the chart did help me get more of an understanding about the way all those drugs work without having too read that much. Please dont leave any messages on my user page or talk page because as I said I am quitting the account.All.ya.little.triksters 19:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep the drug chart

  • All.ya.little.triksters 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think your bickering isn't productive; leave it until we reach a consensus. Jolb 02:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I think its only fair to allow reasonable time to provide all the required references before removing it. --Thoric 02:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • object to poll -see above. R. Baley 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...

Remove the drug chart

  • cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Per WP:OR and WP:V until the errors are corrected and the placements are sourced. BenB4 02:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • object to poll -see above. R. Baley 19:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have been protesting its inclusion since it was first added by Thoric. It is WP:NOR, because it simplifies psychopharmacology in a way that is plainly impossible. JFW | T@lk 12:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...
  • ...

Object I would strongly recommend striking out/cancelling this immediately. WP:POLLS reminds us that polls are used to facilitate further discussion, not to create binding editorial decisions on articles. The person who started this has mistakenly transposed an AfD-like process on an article talkpage. The decision to keep or remove the chart will be the result of discussion and policy adherence, and even a "straw poll" would not achieve much at this time other than to divide consensus, as we already have a pretty good idea of where the issue stands. heqs ·:. 12:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think voting actually provides the clarification required.--Limegreen 02:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I voted in the poll was because of the reams and reams of material produced thus far...RFC up yet?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

This is a beacon for comment from some other wikipedians so far not involved. BenB4 and I are two editors who have a problem with the Venn Diagram created by Thoric on the article page. We acknolwedge he's put alot of work into the diagram but feel it can't be used without radical changes if at all. The two main issues are:

  • Of the 95 compounds on the chart I have a problem with the placement of 40 of them (5 true antipsychotics which are also significantly sedating, all 23 drugs which overlap into the antipsychotic section none of which are antipsychotic and 5 are recorded as potentially psychotogenic (the - proprions and the MDA group, I'll concede cannibidiol for the moment as I am not too familiar with that), and the arbitary placement of 4 deliriants outside the depressant group while 8 narcotic analgesics are inside the group. I repeat - you've done alot of work and attempting to conceptualise and graph out these things is good but this cannot be done this way.
  • Given that Thoric had to redesign it to incorporate antipsychotics it constitutes Origianal Research.

The talk page shows that others have found te diagram contentious over the period it has been there. I should add that all comments on making the article acceptable to the consensus much appreciated.

Comments below[edit]

I have protested Thoric's diagram since its introduction. It has always been WP:NOR in the sense that it seems to be a new synthesis of information rather than an established and mainstream categorisation of psychopharmaca. It simplifies the field to the extent that it is false. JFW | T@lk 12:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: JFW is a medical doctor. ←BenB4 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There are five problems with the diagram: (1) it has factual errors (such as alcohol not shown as a stimulant, contrary to peer-reviewed literature) which Thoric refuses to correct after weeks, (2) it resembles a Venn diagram but is not -- Thoric calls it a "spectral-Venn hybrid" which is has only one Google hit: this article, (3) it is entirely a synthesis not supported by the references it cites, violating WP:OR, (4) it is not fully referenced, violating WP:V, and (5) Thoric has refused to remove the diagram until these problems can be corrected, indicating WP:OWN problems. I recommend that all editors remove it from the article. ←BenB4 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) Alcohol is classified as a sedative/depressant in every medical text. This stimulant effect you are referring to is subjective, controversial, only happens with high doses of alcohol, and only affects half the population:
Ethanol exerts both stimulant-like and sedative-like subjective and behavioral effects in humans depending on the dose, the time after ingestion and, we will argue, also on the individual taking the drug. This study assessed stimulant-like and sedative-like subjective and behavioral effects of ethanol during the ascending and descending limbs of the blood alcohol curve across a range of doses in nonproblem social drinkers. Forty-nine healthy men and women, 21 to 35 years old, consumed a beverage containing placebo or ethanol (0.2, 0.4, or 0.8 g/kg) on four separate laboratory sessions, in randomized order and under double-blind conditions. Subjective and behavioral responses were assessed before and at regular intervals for 3 hr after ingestion of the beverage. The lowest dose of ethanol (0.2 g/kg) only produced negligible subjective effects compared to placebo. The moderate dose (0.4 g/kg) increased sedative-like effects 90 min after ethanol ingestion but did not increase ratings of stimulant effects at any time. The highest dose (0.8 g/kg) increased ratings of both stimulant- and sedative-like effects during the ascending limb and produced only sedative-like effects during the descending limb. Closer examination of the data revealed that individual differences in response to the highest dose of ethanol accounted for this unexpected pattern of results: about half of the subjects reported stimulant-like effects on the ascending limb and sedative-like effects on the descending limb after 0.8 g/kg ethanol, whereas the other half did not report stimulant-like effects at any time after administration of ethanol. These results challenge the simple assumption that ethanol has biphasic subjective effects across both dose and time, and extend previous findings demonstrating individual differences in response to ethanol. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 1998 Dec;22(9):1903-11
(2) Perhaps a better term exists for such a spectral-Venn hybrid, but I don't see why that is a "problem". (3) Have you read all the supporting material? (4) It has several references, and I started citing references for specific aspects on a subpage as requested, (5) I see no reason to remove the diagram during the period of adding more references and making minor corrections and/or adjustments. I recommend that you cool your jets, and maybe read WP:CIV, WP:AGF, WP:NAM, etc. --Thoric 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You use a made-up term for the diagram and don't see why that is a problem. I have read the supporting material, which is why I am completely sure that the diagram is original research: your citations don't support the classifications you use, you made them up yourself. I am sorry that you "see no reason" to abide by the foundational principles of the project. I have been fully civil, and given you far more of an assumption of good faith than your insertion of OR material warrants. ←BenB4 19:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What classifications did I "make up myself"? Every single classification is out of scientific texts. I didn't make them up, and it is clearly obvious that you have not verified my resources. Have you read William A McKim's Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition)? Have you looked at the classifications in that book? I somehow doubt it since you claim I made up these classifications. --Thoric 19:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
To start with, you classified dozens of drugs as antipsychotic when you admit they are not. Which specific categories in McKim are you referring to, and on what page number(s)? ←BenB4 19:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you conveniently ignored the half dozen or so peer-reviewed sources I cited showing the antipsychotic properties of some antidepressants, and how antipsychotics and antidepressants had effects on the some of the same pathways in the brain, etc. As for the McKim book, all you have to do is open the table of contents, the information is not hidden if you actually looked at a copy of the book. As my copy is at home, and I am at work at the moment, you'll have to wait for page numbers, but as for specific categories, from him I took the sedative/hypnotic grouping (where alcohol was placed), with the minor tranquilizers (aka benzos) being a subgroup of that, and for the sedatives and opiates being "depressants". I also took his grouping of the psychomotor stimulants (cocaine and the amphetamines) as well as grouping those with the xanthines as "stimulants". There was a reference for fluoxetine being a stimulant: page 110 of Susanne P. Schad-Somers, Ph.D. (1990). "The Biology of Cell Communication", On Mood Swings: The Psychobiology of Elation and Depression. Plenum Press, 273. ISBN 0306435624, for some reason it is missing from the page's citations, but I know I added it at one point. --Thoric 19:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
So for your reference that says "Medications for mental illness are divided into four large categories—antipsychotic, antimanic, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications[31]" -- how is that reflected in your diagram? ←BenB4 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm...those references make for a pretty tenuous leap (from some antipsychotics having some antidepressant properties to this conclusion that antidepressants are antipsychotics) and a big jump in logic for an opinion that is not held by any doctor AFAIK.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say that there were antipsychotics, just that they were on the spectrum between antipsychotic and propsychotic... being closer to antipsychotic than propsychotic. I agree that they current incarnation of the chart is prone to raise such confusion, so I am working on one that is more of a simple X/Y spectrum rather than overlapping regions, and within that I can place standard the standard medical Venn groupings. --Thoric 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
If your reference does actually say ""Medications for mental illness are divided into four large categories—antipsychotic, antimanic, antidepressant, and antianxiety medications[32]", then why don't you change the Antipsychotics header to "Medications for mental illness" or a similar term like "Psychiatric Medications?" Jolb 22:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to locate a single term that means the same thing... I'm sure there is one. --Thoric 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
But that's the problem - it's artificial and bears no resemblance to actual classification - it's like having a category of "tools that plumbers use" and having 'suction cap', 'drill' and 'Drano' all listed and trying to make some intrinsic connection between them (I thought of plumbers asI have one in the house as we speak..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that every discussion about whether the diagram should be included devolves into comments about how to improve its many deficiencies is just more evidence that it fails WP:V and WP:NOR. ←BenB4 22:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you consider comments about "improving" to somehow be "devolving" is just more evidence that your intentions are negative and disruptive, and certainly not civil. --Thoric 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a very basic problem with this diagram: it is simply not possible to cluster all classes of psychoactive drugs into such a simplistic two dimensional diagram of similarities - even if more circles and sub-circles were added. Every class of psychoactive compounds has its unique mechanism of action and its unique pharmacological target (such as a certain neurotransmitter receptor, transporter, or channel). Many psychoactive drugs have multiple targets (like some antipsychotics that are also antidepressants or certain hallucinogens that are also stimulants). The chosen main categories (stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens, and antipsychotics) are overly simplistic in this context and any arrangement of the drugs in this diagram would be misleadingly suggest similarities that are not there.

Beside these strong and fundamental concerns, the diagram is arbitrary and genuine original research and clearly violates the Wikipedia:Original_research policy. The suggested similarities of drug classes are not independently verifiable and violate the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. It is the personal project of Thoric and he has put much effort into it over the past two years or so to enhance it and to adjust it to criticism, thereby proving the original research aspect. He is, and always was, very eloquent at defending it against criticism and deletion requests. Most critics including me simply gave up. His de facto ownership of the diagram is something that should be avoided per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy.

I suggest the deletion of the diagram in its current form. The diagram has no place in the Wikipedia article space, including any subpage (as suggested above), and the only acceptable compromise would be to move it into Thoric's user space or to an external website. It should be replaced in a form that does not suggest non-existing similarities, such as a table of the drugs against their (multiple) biochemical targets with crosses at the intersection of drug and target. Cacycle 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. --WS 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
After re-reading the recent replies above I have the impression that Thoric himself fell for the implicit suggestion of drug quality as a continuum between three poles. It is not like mixing of three basic colors. There are many discreet pharmacological targets and drugs that are sometimes act upon multiple targets or that by acting on different targets sometimes cause somewhat similar effects. Another reason to remove this diagram. Cacycle 01:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there anywhere I can find a working copy of The Drug Chart on the internet? I found it to be one of the most useful things on Wikipedia, and would like to continue it's use. Is there any way something as effective in redirecting readers to pages on individual drugs as well as giving them a general idea of their effects and how they relate to other substances could be made? There are plenty on people [source needed] who used The Chart to research drugs on Wikipedia (even though that is probably a bad idea.) Perhaps The Drug Chart merits it's own Wikipedia article, which would give a working example, discuss it's origins, and review the resulting battle over it's being removed. This would keep The Chart up and working while acknowledging it's short-comings, as well as create a very trippy, self-referential thing haha. I'm not an editor or any kind of authority on the subject, I just thought The Chart was helpful, and would like to see something as helpful soon. 05:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It remains accessible at 05:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I just came here from the RfC. Would it be presumptious to assume that the issue is resolved? If so, please remove the listing; if not, the disputed diagram sounds like a very clear case of original research, one which ought to go through a rigorous peer-review process before publication. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 04:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that. (shuffles off to do housekeeping...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bring back the chart[edit]

Any chart, i don't care, just bring something like it back. Blah blah, i don't care about the dispute or anything, i just need a quick reference of it. just add a notice to it or something if its unscientific, all i know is that "The chart" has been one of the best references i've seen on wikipedia involving drugs.

Thyuji 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, it will always be available here. May I ask what you were using it for? ←BenB4 01:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Table of drugs rather than a diagram?[edit]

Having just had a look at this page now that the dust has settled somewhat on the diagram discussion, I cannot help but feel that there was some use for the diagram. It simplified a complex subject. However, having looked at the diagram I can also see why people have had major problems with it as it is hard to justify some of the places where individual drugs were put. The diagram, has major problems conceptually in that drugs need to be fitted into a specific spot on it. This would not be the case with a table listing the effects of various drugs with a number of columns which could contain +++ or something similar. Tables of this nature exist in pharmacology texts. Using a table would also allow easy editing of ratings if there were any disputes. Column headings could be different for each drug family and reflect the major therapeutic and side effects. --CloudSurfer 11:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree, and suggested that above. One thing that particularly bothered me about the "spectral" aspect is that almost all of the effects are at least partially dose-dependent, which makes relative placement on a continuum almost meaningless without reference to dosages. A table would have none of the problems the diagram does. Is there any reason that such information can't be added to the "Affected neurotransmitter systems" table? ←BenB4 11:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Not so easily I think. You would have to divide it up into families with different headings. For instance, sedation would not be a column heading in the stimulants but would be in the antipsychotics (typical and atypical), and the antidepressants. Sedation as a column heading would be unnecessary in the sedative/hypnotics as it is a therapeutic effect. (By the way, where did the category "depressants" come from. First time I recall seeing that used by itself in psychopharmacology. "CNS depressants" I have seen used.) Some things like extrapyramidal effects would be specific to only one or two of the families. The current table gives examples of drugs but is far from exhaustive. Then again, if every psychoactive drug was in the table, it would be a large table indeed.
There is no such table in the articles on antipsychotics, antidepressants, or anxiolytics yet it would be worthwhile in each. Citation may be difficult. I suspect that most such tables are based more on clinician experience rather than articles published in peer reviewed journals. For instance, if you use between one to three "+" for a side effect like weight gain from the antipsychotics, how would you determine the rating of each drug? However, despite all the difficulties, it would be worth doing. It borders on original research but would not really amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Rather it would be a synthesis of accepted information into a more accessible format.
Let us see if there is more support for the idea. --CloudSurfer 12:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this idea is interesting, especially considering that there would be citable sources for said chart. However, due to the sheer number of drugs that it would have to cover, and the fact that everyone wants their drug of choice listed, this article might not be the best place for it. Maybe these charts would find better homes on the articles on each of the major families (antipsychotics, antidepressants, etc) since drugs within those families have more in common so there can be more consistency in the headings. Steve carlson 23:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with some table - many psychiatric textbooks have tables highlighting variability in side effects for different drugs. There is too much variation within class for many generalizations. Antidepressants are a bit easier (the whole atypical antipsychotic category is grossly artificial anyway). I'd think a colour coded table incorporated into the exisiting list... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Therapeutic Guidelines - Psychotropic is published by a not-for-profit organisation in Australia with good academic credentials looking at the list of authors. Without realising it at the time, this book has exactly what I was suggesting. I have since written to them to ask them if they would object to us using their tables. If they agree then this would get rid of most of the hard work. Let's see what happens. --CloudSurfer 02:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Which specific tables, do you have a deep link? We are likely to be able to adapt most of the information in tables because they are usually pure data without any protected creative content. ←BenB4 08:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I have the 2000 edition of the book. I cannot find a link to the text although you can purchase the whole series on CD-ROM. However, I have had a reply from Jane Watson-Brown, Health Information Officer & Copyright Permissions saying, "Thankyou for your copyright request below. We are always happy to receive requests to reproduce our material. We will consider your request and get back to you as soon as we are able." Since the tables include perceptions of the strength of various factors, I suspect it is likely to be copyright, however, the tone of the reply is positive. --CloudSurfer 22:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)