User talk:Thoric/archive5

cat changes . . .

[1], [2], [3], and etc. i don't like it at all. i've left a note for Urod (talk • contribs) at their talk page. thoughts? --heah 07:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

References?

Hey! I really like the way you've improved all of these wiki articles about hallucinogens, and I have started using your classifications as a way to describe different psychoactives. However, I've gotten into MANY, MANY arguments about whether or not "dissociatives" qualify as "psychedelics." I disagree, but mainly because of what I've read on wikipedia and my basic knowledge of the difference between NMDA receptor antagonists and serotonergic drugs. However, some people have railed against me, saying that psychedelic is a general term, and have referenced some real medical studies that describe dissociatives as "psychedelic." [4] So, my question is: Do you have any references for your terminology? It's a very efficient and appropriate terminology, in my opinion, but who created it? Please give me some citations! Jolb 19:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

From Jolb's Talk page: Hi Jolb :) I've also had many similar arguments. I'll have to get back to you with references as I'm at work right now, but for starter's I'd direct those people to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics,_Dissociatives and Deliriants page as well as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Drugs page, where these things have already been organized, classified and templates made to match this classification scheme. Essentially this classification scheme has already been accepted and put to use. Unfortunately there is little in mainstream medical and scientific literature to source these things directly, but I can provide some references. It will just take a day or two to go through my library. In the mean time, direct them to the project pages and let them take the argument to the project talk pages. As for the argument in general, while the term "psychedelic" is used loosely among though who do not know of a better term, those who work specifically in the area of hallucinogens certainly understand the world of difference between LSD and ketamine. Without some lingo to help differentiate between different substances, things get very confusing. These people you are arguing with are only serving to make things more confusing. --Thoric 21:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hrm... I just noticed your comment on the Talk:Psychoactive drug page, and it seems your comments there are the diametric opposite of what you said on my talk page... I am now quite confused. The substances within the hallucinogens "bubble" are organized (mostly) pharmacologically, but use terminology a little more common than that of neurology. As for the concept that psychedelic is a "colloquial term", this is incorrect. The term psychedelic was specifically coined by a scientist to describe the effects of mescaline. --Thoric 21:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoric, you took way too long to reply to my message, so I went ahead and mentioned the fact that your classification of hallucinogens is not referenced.

Essentially this classification scheme has already been accepted and put to use.

I think that this "standard" and "accepted" terminology is only accepted and standard within wikipedia. Nowhere else have I found a similar classification for "psychedelics." On other respectable websites, within the medical community, and within the drug community, your terminology (especially a class of drugs called psychedelics), is NOT universal. So I'd like to see at least ONE respectable source that's not on wikipedia that uses this terminology.

As for the argument in general, while the term "psychedelic" is used loosely among though who do not know of a better term, those who work specifically in the area of hallucinogens certainly understand the world of difference between LSD and ketamine. (Thoric)

Again, please cite any respectable that defines a class of drugs called "psychedelics." Nothing you've cited mentions any "psychedelic" sub-class of drugs. I cited a page from PubMed that shows a medical journal describing ketamine as "psychedelic," and you have presented zero sources that define "psychedelic" as a scientific class of drugs. Therefore, as it stands, there is one very reliable source saying that this terminology is wrong, and none to defend it. Therefore, it should be removed, since without any sources, it is POV.

As for the concept that psychedelic is a "colloquial term", this is incorrect. The term psychedelic was specifically coined by a scientist to describe the effects of mescaline. (Thoric)

I'm familiar with how and why the term was coined, and you seem to have misunderstood it. Take a look at the psychedelic. The term was created relatively recently using two greek words: psyche (mind) delic (beautiful) to describe a mental state. Nowhere did he refer to a specific neuropharmacological pathway, and ketamine and other dissociatives can be mind-manifesting. However, if the word has been used to describe serotonergic drugs (as it indicates in your diagram) I would not argue, but I'd like to see a citation for that. Jolb 23:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

from Jolb's talk page:Again I'm a little confused by your switch in sides of the argument, initially claiming to agree, then later disagreeing, and blaming me for my late response (btw, I was out of the country on vacation until today). If you had bothered to research Humphry Osmond a little more closely, you would find that he and Aldous Huxley were specifically corresponding in regards to mescaline-like substances at the time of the inception of the word. The term most certainly does not apply directly to dissociatives nor other hallucinogens. Do a little more history reading. These terms are used within the respected parts of the community and I advise you to check out sites like Erowid.org a little more carefully as well. As for the references, I said that I would provide them shortly, and as for PubMed, well, I can assure you that they are certainly not the true authority on hallucinogens by a long shot. --Thoric 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but from what I can find erowid does NOT defend your classification of drugs. Cite one page on erowid that does. Anyway, if YOU did your research on Osmond, he originally included many drugs in "psychedelics," even hashish. Please, when you next reply, cite some specific sources. Jolb 14:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I can't imagine why you believe that psychoactive drug researchers at universities aren't a respectable authority on hallucinogens. Try looking up the authors of that article, T. A. Bodle and A. D. Radant. Jolb 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From Jolb's talk page: Plus, I can't imagine why you believe that psychoactive drug researchers at universities aren't a respectable authority on hallucinogens. Try looking up the authors of that article, T. A. Bodle and A. D. Radant. Jolb 14:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not consider someone who studies mountaineering, but has never actually climbed a mountain to be a true authority on mountain climbing, and I certainly would prefer to trust my life to a guide who had many years of experience climbing real mountains as opposed to only reading books about mountaineering. Likewise, any university drug researcher who has never taken the substance they purport to be an expert on, cannot be considered to be an authority in my books. --Thoric 16:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

:Lastly, I would still like to hear an explanation of why on January 20th you said, "It's a very efficient and appropriate terminology, in my opinion", but three days later you are "railing" against me as you claimed others have against you. Three days is not "way too long", and anyone who completely switches their views 180 degrees in a couple days seems rather erratic in my opinion. How much expertise do you have in this area? Your user page says you are 18 -- a little young to consider yourself an authority on these matters. --Thoric 16:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the researchers, I think your argument is self-defeating. You claim that "psychedelic" is a term that describes a scientific class of drugs that specifically excludes certain hallucinogenic drugs just because they have a different neuropharmacological pathway. Yet, you say that scientists who study neuropharmacology are wrong when they define psychedelic. You seem to think that non-scientists are more the authority on scientific definitons. That too is a very illogical argument. You say people who've taken these drugs are authorities on a specific neurochemical classification. It's a very poor argument. If you intend to classify hallucinogens by users' reported effects, I can refer you to many users that claim that ketamine and DXM are psychedelic, in that they are mind-manifesting, just ask if you'd like me to have these people write something here.

Also, I don't claim to be an authority. I'm not trying to argue anything but the facts I know. I am not volunteering my opinion. However, in the three days between when I first posted on your talk page, I researched your classification and I could find no citations. As a wikipedian, I felt that to follow wikipedia's rules, it was my duty to try and sort out what seemed to be POV. All I ask is a citation for your classification system so that I know that it's not your POV. Additionally, I've noticed that since we started this discussion, you repeatedly made very heartfelt arguments... and I think that a person with such an intense opinion might definitely be writing their own personal POV. I don't think that's wrong, and I would defend your argument too, because I think it's a nice terminology, but that doesn't mean it's worth being in wikipedia. Wikipedia must have objective, non-POV information, and unless you can give me a good citation about your terminology, I'll be convinced that your classification is POV and should be removed. Jolb 20:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If you google for psychedelic and dissociative you will find many references to them referring to two different things. I also pointed you to the more specific Erowid areas, and I pointed you to a cited reference by Dr. L. Greenspoon. I also requested that you give me a couple days to go home and grab some references from my library. Please note that if you examine the talk page, the Psychoactive drug article has already been subject to requests for sources, and those requests were satisfied at the time. Of course I am making "heartfelt" arguments because I have put a lot of work into these pages over a number of years, not from any original research or personal POV, but from doing hard research through a great number of volumes. (I own about 100 books specifically on psychoactive drugs). My only failing here has been a lack of citing specific sources to that which appeared obvious. While you appear to have the intention of improving these Wikipedia articles, the end result of what you are suggesting will only serve to make things more confusing to the reader, and that I believe is a large disservice to the public.

The larger issue here has been gone over time and time again with respect to terms such as "hallucinogen" and "psychedelic" where we have to make due with the terminology we have available to us, as we cannot make up our own terminology here. We need a term to describe all substances legally classified as "hallucinogens", and "hallucinogen" is the only single word available to us. We have split hallucinogens into three primary subgroups -- psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants -- so that it is more clear the difference between different substances. "Psychedelic" is not a good blanket term for all hallucinogens, as we would then have no term with which to refer to the "mind expanding" variety of substances. These terms are not defined by us. Certainly different people (including scientists) may use them both more loosely and also more stringently, but we could spend months citing references to how different scientists differ in opinion from each other. This is a waste of time and resources. I will cite some resources for you when I get a chance, but I request that you take a larger look at the body of work involved here. --Thoric 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been a few days now... do you have the citations? Jolb 19:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not of yet had time to obtain them due to some other pressing issues, but rest assured I will post them in as timely a manner as possible. --Thoric 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've found a second citation that goes against your definition of "psychedelic drugs," maybe you'll find this one more reliable: [5] from the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jolb (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

As the article you provided states, "as defined in this chapter, the term psychedelic drugs includes" ... it is clear that the authors are defining the meaning of a term to suit the purpose of that particular chapter in their book. If the term psychedelic drug was already well defined to include dissociative drugs, they would not have needed to lead with that statement. Also, why do you continue to ignore my repeated citings of Dr. Greenspoon's definition of a psychedelic drug? As I stated before, building a list of every researcher and their particular use of the term "psychedelic" doesn't prove anything besides the fact that the term is often used loosely. The point is that we need a term to differentiate between the dissociative hallucinogens and the non-dissociative hallucinogens, and psychedelic is the only term which has been used in that capacity by the scientific community regardless of its uses in other contexts. --Thoric 19:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

From Jolb's Talk page: While I've been too busy with more pressing issues to dig into my library at home, the following should be more than adequate for now...

• First of all, as I've mentioned before, Dr. Greenspoon's definition of a psychedelic drug from Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, ISBN 0-465-06450, as I've quoted here and is quoted in the psychedelic drug article:

a psychedelic drug is one which has small likelihood of causing physical addiction, craving, major physiological disturbances, delirium, disorientation, or amnesia, produces thought, mood, and perceptual changes otherwise rarely experienced except perhaps in dreams, contemplative and religious exaltation, flashes of vivid involuntary memory and acute psychoses. The above definition clearly excludes deliriants, and is far more typical of substances like LSD as opposed to PCP.

• This entry from The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Psychedelic adj. Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis. n.

A drug, such as LSD or mescaline, that produces such effects.

• This definition from biology-online.org:

psychedelic

1. Pertaining to a rather imprecise category of drugs with mainly central nervous system action, and with effects said to be the expansion or heightening of consciousness, e.g., LSD, hashish, mescaline.

• A book called Psychedelic Information Theory - Shamanism in the Age of Reason by James Kent has a chapter entitled Psychedelics, Dissociatives, and Deliriants : Different Drugs, Different Dosages, Different Actions -- here is a link to an excerpt [6]

• I even found an online copy of someone's Neurochemistry term paper which includes the statement, "Interestingly, both the classical psychedelics and the dissociatives, with their opposite effects on the sensorium, can lead to a sensation of oneness with the universe, and the mystical experience."

Clearly psychedelic by itself primarily refers to substances like LSD, psilocybin and mescaline, and can also include THC and MDMA to some extent. When people talk about substances like Ketamine, DXM and PCP, they go out of their way to note that they are dissociatives even if they may also consider them to be psychedelic. --Thoric 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think those resources are conclusive. Greenspoon's definition is definitely applicable to dissociatives like ketamine or DXM. Stedman's definition definitely does not exclude drugs like DXM or ketamine, nor does biology-online's definition. None of them are in any way conclusive, and none of them makes anything close to the scientific definition you defend. The only one that appears to defend the usage is James Kent. However, it's clear that this terminology is controversial, given the two sources I cited [7] [8]. Therefore, since it's controversial, we should either make a note to any wikipedia readers that it's not a universal classification (that it's James Kent's classification), or, alternatively, change the classification so that it's based on something less controversial, like pharmacological properties. Jolb 16:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenspoon's definition clearly puts the focus on the non-dissociative substances:

a psychedelic drug is one which has small likelihood of causing physical addiction, craving,

• long term use of dissociatives such as PCP, ketamine and DXM have been shown to cause addition, whereas psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin do not

(small likelihood of causing ) major physiological disturbances, delirium, disorientation, or amnesia,

• these occurrences are far more common with dissociatives, especially with equipotent dosages

produces thought, mood, and perceptual changes

• dissociatives are more likely to nearly (or even completely) cut off perception of the outside world as opposed to changes in perception (although one could argue that disabling perception counts as a "change" in perception).

Stedman's definition also puts the focus onto non-dissociative psychedelics:

Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis

• Dissociatives are not characterized by "distortions of perception" or even really by hallucinations or altered states of awareness so much as dissociated (which means dis-joined -- disconnected) from their outward perceptions, and ultimately focused inward, typically drifting from one disconnected region of the mind to another, forgetting who they are, and how they got there. While one can also obtain these states at the peak stages of high doses of psychedelics, this is the only way in which they are similar.

While all these definitions of psychedelic do not necessarily exclude dissociatives completely, they most certainly put the focus onto classic psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin and mescaline, and as I have noted before, whenever dissociatives are brought into the mix, they are clearly labeled as such. I don't believe that this classification is all that controversial, as I have personally shown this chart to a number of researchers in this area (including Alexander Shulgin, Earth Erowid, Jonathan Ott, Dale Pendell, among others) and none of them considered the psychedelic / dissociative / deliriant classifications to be questionable. --Thoric 17:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

More references, as promised

Okay, so I started going through my books (they are all in a big box and hard to get to them all), and came up with a few more references to start with:

• In Pharmacotheon, by Jonathan Ott (ISBN 0-9614234-3-9), on page 103 he notes that "In a 1956 letter to Huxley, Humphrey Osmond proposed the term psychedelic for mescaline and related drugs.

• In Psychedelics Encyclopedia, by Peter Stafford (ISBN 0-914171-51-8), in the forward written by Dr. Andrew Weil, on page III-10, in the third paragraph he states, "In my view, the true psychedelics are the indoles (LSD, psilocybin, the tryptamines, harmaline, etc) and the phenethylamines (mescaline, MDA, DOM, etc.). These drugs and the plants they come from constitute a distinct pharmacological group, all of which stimulate the central and sympathetic nervous systems and all of which affect serotonin or dopamine pathways (or both) in the brain. These drugs are also distinguished by great medical safety, particularly the indoles. They do not kill, injure or produce any serious physical toxicity even in large overdoses or chronic use over lifetimes."
• On page III-11, about halfway down the page he says, "PCP and ketamine are pharmacological curiousities, not related to other recreational drugs. Many users like the "dissociative" states they provide, but few find them truly psychedelic. Their toxicity and abuse potential are significant." --Thoric 08:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Jolb's references

I consulted someone I consider an expert on the topic, and he gave me a BUNCH of citations. I'll put them here.

Here are some quotations from the 1957 paper by Osmond that introduced the term "psychedelic":

The great William James endured much uncalled-for criticism for suggesting that in some people inhalations of nitrous oxide allowed a psychic disposition that is always potentially present to manifest itself briefly. Has our comparative neglect of these experiences, recognized by James and Bergson as being of great value, rendered psychology stale and savorless?

(Osmond, A Review of the Clinical Effects of Psychotomimetic Agents)

There are such substances as soma, hashish, cohoba, ololiuqui, peyote, the Syrian rue, the caapi vine, the fungus teonanacatl, the two Amanitas, pantherina and muscaria...

(ibid.)

Methedrine, as I have already indicated, prolongs and reactivates the LSD-25 model. According to a drug addict, Benzedrine in large doses, dissolved in black coffee, is very like mescaline in effect.

(ibid.)

Osmond explicitly referred to hashish and the psychoactive amanitas as psychedelics, implicitly indicated that nitrous oxide triggers "psychedelic" experiences, and indicated openness to and interest in similarities between the amphetamines and psychedelics (similarities which have been perceived by more than one commentator). It is clear that at this early date the definition of the term was phenomenological ("mind-manifesting") and not pharmacological ("affecting 5-HT 2a receptors in a manner identical to LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline").

From The Pharmacology of Psychedelic Drugs, by Ralph Metzner (found in Issue 1 of Psychedelic Review, Summer 1963, pp. 69-100):

The term 'psychedelic,' taken from Osmond (1957), is used here to refer to a group of substances whose primary effect on human subjects is the radical alteration of consciousness, perception, and mood. They have been variously called 'psychotomimetic,' 'hallucinogenic,' 'psychotogenic,' 'consciousness-expanding,' or 'mysticomimetic.' No attempt is made here to describe or analyze the subjective psychological effects of these drugs and plants, and the reader may be referred to the excellent reviews by Osmond (1957) and Unger (1963) for this purpose.

Many drugs and still more plants with unknown chemical constitutents are known to alter consciousness, perception, and mood. The amphetamines induce arousal or mood elevation; the barbiturates produce somonolence or narcosis. The more recent tranquilizers and anti-depressants seem to vary on a parallel but more subtle dimension. The present group of substances excludes these as well as the opiates, cocaine and other anaesthetics , and atropine and its derivatives. The 'psychedelic' drugs reviewed here were selected according to the following criteria:

(1) their somatic effects are relatively unimportant, compared to the marked psychic effects;

(2) no cases of addiction or dependence have been reported;

(3) though tolerance develops, there is no abstinence syndrome on withdrawal;

(4) they have been described in the psychiatric literature as 'psychotomimetic';

(5) they have also been described in the psychiatric literature as useful in therapy.

With these criteria in mind a group of about fifteen drugs was selected, which may be classified chemically into the following five categories: (1) phenylethylamine derivatives, of which mescaline is an example; (2) lysergic acid derivatives, of which LSD is an example; (3) tryptamine derivatives, of which psilocybin is an example; (4) piperidyl benzilate esters, of which JB 329 or Ditran is an example; and (5) phencyclidine (Sernyl).

A word about similarities and differences between these drugs. There seems to be general consensus that the drugs in the first three groups are essentially alike in their effects, differing only in duration of action (Unger, 1963; Szara, 1957; Wolbach et al., 1962a). The relationship of these drugs to Ditran and Sernyl is less well understood, but they are alike in producing 'psychotic-like' hallucinatory episodes in which contact is maintained and which may result in reintegration and insight (English, 1962). For the purposes of this paper, they will be assumed to be sufficiently alike to warrant searching for common or parallel pharmacological mechanisms.

(pp. 69-70)

(5) Phencyclidine

Sernyl, which is 1-(1-phenylcyclohexyl) piperidine, originally used as an anesthetic, was reported to be 'psychotomimetic' by Luby et al. (1959) and has also been used in psychotherapy (Davies 1960, 1961). Chemically, it is related to the previous group of piperidyl benzilate esters, but differs in not antagonizing acetylcholine, and in other respects. The main difference in the type of action induced by Sernyl as compared to other hallucinogens is its strong sedative effect (Gershon et al., 1960)."

(p. 76)

Please note that Dr. Metzner, one of the co-authors of The Psychedelic Experience and an internationally recognized authority on psychedelic drugs and altered states of consciousness, has extensive personal experience with psychedelic drugs (this in regard to Thoric's contention that s/he will not listen to authorities who have never taken psychedelics; more on this later).

In a personal conversation with me, Dr. Metzner stated that he based his classification of PCP as a psychedelic on the literature at that time rather than personal experience, and that he would no longer classify PCP as a psychedelic drug, but would extend that classification to ketamine.

A user comparison of DXM inebriation to LSD inebriation, 1967:

TOXIC PSYCHOSIS DUE TO DEXTROMETHORPHAN

A 23 year-old male, a well-known drug addict, recently presented with a toxic psychosis due to taking 20 tablets of "Romilar" (dextromethorphan), which he bought from a chemist. This was characterized by hyperactive behavior, extreme pressure of thought, marked visual and auditory hallucinations, and association of sounds with colours (synaesthesia). This experience was likened to that experienced when he was under the influence of L.S.D.

As this substance is readily available from chemists, it is felt that general practitioners should be aware of similar toxic psychoses which may occur with large doses of this drug.

Angus Dodds, Psychiatrist-in-Charge.

Rozelle Psychiatric Clinic, N.S.W.

E. Revai, Registrar in Psychiatry.

Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney.

(Dodds A, Revai E (1967), Toxic psychosis due to dextromethorphan., Med J Aust 2:231.)

A comparison by doctors of DXM inebriation to mescaline inebriation, 1968:

from abstract:

The case of a 23-yr-old female patient who used dextromethorphan, a synthetic antitussive morphine derivative, for hallucinogenic purposes revealed different elements of an induced psychosis, similar to those described in 1948 by Delay and Gerard in mescaline intoxication: bodily disturbances, strangeness felt vis-a-vis the world and objects, loss of identity and self-regulation with respect to people and things, auditory perception modifications, spatial and temporal estimation, and hallucinatory manifestations, etc."

(Bornstein, S; Czermak, M; Postel, J., Apropos of a case of voluntary medicinal intoxication with dextromethorphan hydrobromide, Annales Medico-Psychologiques, Volume 1, Issue 3, 1968, pages 447-451, Bornstein, S.; Czermak, M.; Postel, J.)

Granted, these don't explicitly use the word "psychedelic," but they're fun historical references. This, from the student magazine Ramparts, 1967, does explicitly use the word "psychedelic":

Lady Day's way wasn't the way of the new generation, Chester Anderson will be quick to tell you, because she was on 'body' drugs. Whatever else body drugs- heroin, opium, barbiturates, alcohol, tranquilizers-may do, they eventually turn you off, and contemporary heads like to be turned on - i.e., senses intensified, stimulated rather than depressed. 'Head' drugs, which do the latter, are both cheaper and easier to get than body drugs, and come in approximately 18 varieties in three different classifications-natural drugs like marijuana, hashish, peyote, morning glory seeds, Hawaiian wood rose seeds, and certain types of Mexican mushrooms; artificial psychedelics like mescaline, LSD, psilocybin and psilocin, and whatever the ingredient is that makes Romilar cough syrup so popular with young heads; and synthetic stimulants which, used in large doses by heads, are known as 'speed' - dexedrine, benzedrine and methedrine.

A reference to DXM as a psychedelic by an underground psychedelic chemist, 1981:

Dextromethorphan, contained in many non-prescription cough medicines, will produce a heavy psychedelic trip, but the nausea characteristic of opiates may constitute a problem.

(p. 165 of Psychedelic Chemistry, Michael Valentine Smith; contained in the chapter "Miscellaneous Psychedelics")

Another reference to PCP as a psychedelic drug, 1967:

A VARIETY of names have been proposed for the group of drugs most popularly called "hallucinogens." Names such as psychotomimetic, psycholytic, psychedelic, schizophrenogenic, cataleptogenic, phantastica, or mysticomimetic have been suggested at one time or another to emphasize a particular aspect of the reactions(8, 24). But, as we shall see later, the type of reaction depends more on the personality and momentary mental set of the subject and on the setting of the experiment than of, the drug itself, so that the noncommittal designation psychodysleptic (meaning distortion of mental functioning), proposed by Delay, seems to be the name of choice (10). The name hallucinogenic, however, is so extensively used that we shall use the two terms interchangeably.

The literature is replete with vivid descriptions of the striking and varied symptoms produced by these drugs(l, 2, 6, 13, 14, 18, 20, 24). These include marked disturbances in sensory perception, lability of emotional experiences, and feelings of depersonalization and derealization. Various characteristics of the primary process thinking, including a dream-like quality of thought, are brought on by these drugs; this aspect of the effect is so prevalent that these drugs are often called "primitivizing agents."

...

From a chemical point of view, we can classify the hallucinogens roughly into three groups(7,13).

The phenylethylamine group might also be called an adrenaline-related group since many of its members show a clear chemical relationship to the sympathomimetic catechols. (See Figure 1.) Mescaline is clearly the major hallucinogen in this group. It is the active ingredient of peyote, the dried tops of the cactus of the Lophophora williamsii used by some Indian tribes in the U. S. and Mexico. The active dose of mescaline is in the 300-500 mg. range.

The other members of this group are either active, like TMA (trimethoxy-amphetamine) or MDA (methylenedioxy-amphetamine), in the same dose range as mescaline, or the activity is shown in animals only (N.N.-dimethylmescaline and 3, 4-dimethoxyphenylethylamine).

The tryptamine group contains most of the known hallucinogens and some of the most active ones. (See Figure 2.) Among the simple derivatives of trvptamine we have a score of compounds with proven hallucinogenic activity. DMT (N.N.-dimethyltryptamine), DET (N.N.-diethyl- tryptamine), DPT (N.N.-dipropyltryptamine), a -MT (dl-a -methyltryptamine), psilocybin, psilocin, and the dimethyl homolog of psilocin have been reported to be active in the 10-50 mg. dose range. The psychodysleptic action of serotonin and bufotenin is not definitely established. DMT and bufotenin are present in the snuff called "cohoba," prepared by Haitian natives from Piptadenia peregrina seeds, while psilocybin is the active substance in the sacred Mexican mushrooms called "teonanacatl" and has been shown to belong to the Psilocybe species.

There are quite a few compounds with proven or suspected hallucinogenic activity which contain the tryptamine structure concealed in a more complex ring structure. (See Figure 3.)

LSD-25 is of course the best known hallucinogen. it is a synthetic product prepared from lysergic acid, the common nucleus of the ergot alkaloids. Its activity bad been discovered in a laboratory accident by A. Hofmann; it proved to be not only the most active hallucinogen (30-100ug. range) but one of the most active drugs ever known.

The other two representatives of the complex tryptamine class shown in the figure are harmine and ibogain. Both of them are of plant origin. Harmine and its hydrogenated derivative, tetrahydroharmine, were found in Banisteria Caapi and Prestonia amazonicum, used by South American Indians in their concoction called "yage," while ibogaine seems to be the active ingredient of the African shrub Tabernanthe iboga, taken by some inhabitants of West Africa and the Congo. The psychodysleptic dosage range for synthetic harmine is between 150-400 mg., while the dosage for ibogaine in man has not yet been esablished.

The third group is a chemically heterogeneous group and its psychological effect in man is distinctly different from that of mescaline or LSD. Among the many pi-peridyl glycollates, the one called "ditran" in doses of 10-20 mg. produces a pattern of somatic and psychological symptoms which is distinctly different from the pattern produced by the typical hallucinogens. The most striking difference is a complete loss of contact with the environment and a considerable amnesia for the hallucinatory period. In contrast, during the effect of LSD or mescaline, the consciousness is mostly clear, and a large portion of the experience is recalled after the effect wears off. (See Figure 4.)

The pattern of psychological reaction to marihuana, in which tetrahydrocannabinol, was shown to be the active ingredient, is also distinguishable from, that of LSD or mescaline. The effective dosage range for the synthetic drug is variously put at 5 mg. to as high as 200 mg.

The effects of the morphine antagonist, N-allylmorphine (nalorphine), are comparable to those of marihuana, and the hallucinogenic dose is 30-75 mg.

The mental symptoms produced by phenycyclidine (sernyl) are body image changes, anaesthesia, and delirium; these are distinctly different from the effects of any other hallucinogen(l, 7, 13). The effective intravenous dose was found to be about 0.1 mg./kg., and the effective oral dose was found to be 10 mg.

(Szara, The Hallucinogenic Drugs-Curse or Blessing?, American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 123, June 12, 1967, 1513-1518)

So, then, phencyclidine is here referred to as a member of a group of drugs, popularly refered to as 'hallucinogens,' that have also been called 'psychedelics.' There are other academic instances of using all these terms interchangeably. (I will quote them shortly)

BTW, it was Szara who first reported that DMT and DET were active psychedelics in humans, based in part on his own self-experiments. He was also experienced with LSD in experimental settings.

I am unsure as to the extent of his use of other psychedelics.

Reference to PCP as a psychedelic drug by Timothy Leary, originally published in 1968:

The State of Sensory Awareness is produced by any psychedelic drug - LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, MDA, yaje, hashish, Sernyl, DMT..."

(Leary, The Politics of Ecstasy, p. 45, 1998 edition, Ronin publishing)

Sernyl was a trade name for PCP in the 1960s.

Another reference to Sernyl as a psychedelic drug, from 1964:

At present, a definition of psychedelics, acceptable to the majority of qualified experts, does not exist...[t]here seems to be agreement about the 'recognition' of LSD, mescaline and derivatives such as TMA, psilocybin (the chief active ingredient of the magic or sacred mushroom of Mexico) as well as psilocin, dimethyltryptamine (DMT), Ditran (or JB-329), Sernyl (or phencyclidine), DET, peyote buttons, and morning glory seeds. In the "doubtful" category are other substances and compounds, such as harmine, harmaline, adrenolutin, adrenochrome, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide. And the oldest of all consciousness-altering drugs, marihuana (hashish), is in the process of revaluation."

(Bates, Psychedelics and the Law, The Psychedelic Review, volume 1, number 4, 1964)

Information on the historical marketing of PCP in the underground drug culture of the 1960s:

When phencyclidine made its illicit debut in 1965[7?], it was marketed as a mild psychedelic. Dealers described this new drug as a mild psychedelic, 'a little stronger than marihuana,' and sold it in tablet and capsule form. The effects were often unexpected. Since the dosage could not be titrated, users often experienced an adverse reaction. Hence, phencyclidine gained a bad reputation and subsequently was not seen on the streets.

(Lerner et. al., Phencyclidine Use Among Youth; http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/21.pdf)

The above is from a series of monographs published in 1978. In the same series we find:

Widespread use of phencyclidine as a psychedelic agent by the drug subculture in the United States is now generally acknowledged.

(Domino, Neurobiology of Phencyclidine; http://www.drugabuse.gov/pdf/monographs/21.pdf)

BTW, it was Dr. Domino's wife who coined the term "dissociative anesthesia".

From 1972:

Presents a brief history of the clinical and street use of phencyclidine. The physiological effects of the drug are noted to vary widely with dose, from alcohol-like intoxication at low doses to analgesia and anesthesia at large doses. The effects on psychological functioning appear to be progressive disintegration with the S reporting decreasing ability to integrate his experiences and sensations. Ss reported increasing apathy and feelings of isolation. Research comparing the state produced by phencyclidine with that of schizophrenia is noted. Clinical management of phencyclidine intoxication is outlined.

(Reed, Alan; Kane, Andrew W; Phencyclidine (PCP): Another illicit psychedelic drug., Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 1972 Fall Vol. 5(1) 8-12); note the article title and the name of the journal in which it appears)

From 1976:

Describes the cases of 7 young adults in whom phencyclidine (PCP) produced a psychosis of several weeks' duration. Descriptions of the patients' premorbid personalities resemble descriptions of LSD and marihuana users who experienced prolonged psychiatric difficulty. It is noted that the psychosis produced can often be recognized as a 'hallucinogen' psychosis. Certain features of the PCP psychosis, namely the neurologic abnormalities, dose-related severity of symptoms, and regularity of the length of illness, are not noted with other psychedelic drugs, leading to the conclusion that PCP psychosis is a drug effect rather than a brief functional psychosis precipitated by the disintegrating PCP experience. However, the infrequent occurrence of psychosis in the (apparently) large exposed population still suggests that this is a combination of drug effect and vulnerable, pathologic personality.

(Fauman, Beverly; Aldinger, Glenn; Fauman, Michael; Rosen, Peter, Psychiatric sequelae of phencyclidine abuse., Clinical Toxicology, 1976 Vol 9(4) 529-538; emphasis mine)

Non-academic sources, starting with a 1990 newspaper article:

Police and federal drug agents capped a yearlong probe with the seizure of a gallon of the psychedelic known as PCP, said to be worth at least $30,000, and the arrest of three men in a major drug distribution ring.

(Coakley, Tom, Raids Allegedly Crack Top 'Angel Dust' Ring, Boston Globe, Sep 4 1990; p 48 col 5)

Newsweek, 2002:

Known as angel dust in the 1970s, PCP, or phencyclidine, gave users superhuman strength and a numbing calm. But the addictive, psychedelic drug also made many paranoid, violent and completely out of touch with reality; they leapt off roofs and broke out of handcuffs with their bare hands.

(Smalley. Suzanne; Rosenberg, Debra, 'I Felt Like I Wanted to Hurt People', Newsweek, July 22, 2002)

Of course, as Thoric has already pointed out, there are other references which explicitly differentiate dissociatives and psychedelics, all of which goes to show that different conceptual schemes are possible, that learned commentators can disagree, and that the Wikipedia reference as it currently stands does not accurately reflect the historical range of usage.

Wikipedia is not obligated to reflect the historical range of usage. The psychedelic drug article already discusses the historical range of usage. The Wikipedians working on this project have chosen to use a specific set of definitions as used by certain experts, such as Dr. Weil, as well as others, you are free to object, but I recommend you do so in the proper place --- here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychedelics,_Dissociatives_and_Deliriants. --Thoric 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thoric engaged in some interesting selecting quotation from Stafford's Psychedelics Encyclopedia. For starters, the Weil quotation omits this line:

Stafford discusses a number of substances I do not consider psychedelics.

(emphasis mine)

How much of the quotation is important? I included the important part -- Weil's definition of psychedelics. --Thoric 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Further on in the book's third edition, in Dan Joy's essay Psychedelic Renaissance, we find:

In the years intervening since the last edition, ketamine hydrochloride has come to be regarded by many of those involved in this area of study as a unique, significant, and bona fide - if somewhat hazardous - psychedelic. Therefore new front matter of additional information about this compound appears in this volume.

(III-24)

Still further, in the section Notes on Ketamine:

[A]nother [user] reports a battle while under the effects of this psychedelic with persistent anal bleeding, the result being a two-month remission of the condition.

Interest in ketamine has recently grown within the psychedelic and alternative spirituality movements as well as in "recreational" contexts ... ketamine has nonetheless earned a reputation as something of a "psychedelic heroin" in spite of its apparent positive potentialities.

(III-55)

It should be granted that the original edition of Stafford's book included both ketamine and PCP in the Contrasting Profiles section, as drugs with some claim to be called psychedelic, though their status was more ambiguous than others Stafford had discussed in his book (which, btw, included marijuana/hashish and the amanitas among other non-LSD-like drugs).

In personal conversation with me, Mr. Stafford referred to DXM as a psychedelic drug.

I was quoting Weil, not Stafford. --Thoric 00:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the blockquoted things are from my friend. I go with him on this one, this is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the terminology is far from standardized, and the chart and articles are misleading since they take a controversial standpoint, something that could be considered POV. I say we change it. Jolb 22:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hold on. How can you say that your friend's standpoint is any less "controversial" than the chart and articles' standpoint? If you read most of what you quoted above, it is clear that substances such as PCP and ketamine are continuously time and time again put into different categorization from other substances considered to be psychedelics. Also note that it is an older convention (late 60s, early 70s) to lump PCP along with LSD. This is no longer the norm. As for the Stafford quotation, I was quoting Weil specifically. Weil's other publications are already cited in the article. Dr. Weil is a very high authority on psychoactives, and I would go so far as to say that I would go to Andrew first if I were to want and clear and concise answer to a question of this sort rather than ask Ralph Metzner. (No offense to Ralph, but I seriously invite you to compare their authorship). I say we don't change it. In closing, I would like to remind you that the changes you propose only serve to cause confusion. If you can have a psychedelic experience by hitting yourself on the head with a brick, good for you -- but adding "bricks" to the list of psychedelic substances isn't going to benefit Wikipedia. --Thoric 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

References discussion

Well, for one, I think that THC definitely falls much farther from those definitions than dissociatives do. THC is about as hallucinogenic as alcohol or ether, and its effects on perception are COMPLETELY dissimilar from serotonin agonists like LSD and psilocybin. Dissociatives, however, can produce a similar state of mind, and there's even neurological evidence that shows that NMDA receptor antagonists can produce some of the same effects as serotonin agonists. [9]

Yes, and no. THC does exhibit mind-manifesting effects including such things as time dilation, altered perception of music, heightened sensitivity of physical sensations, facilitation of creative thought, and at higher dosages, altered visual perception and hallucinations. While THC is much less of a "hallucinogen" than both the classic psychedelics and the dissociatives, it is more closely aligned with the psychedelics than the dissociatives. --Thoric 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Time dilation, altered perception of music, a different (actually lowered) sensitivity of physical sensation, and facilitation of creative thought are all very real effects of the three main recreational dissociatives: DXM, ketamine, and PCP. And how is THC more closely aligned with psychedelics? Jolb 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is more closely aligned due to fact that it does not exhibit significant dissociation proportionate to dosage in the manner that dissociatives do. Instead it exhibits a similar dissociation curve to that of classic psychedelics. THC is also physically safe at dosages hundreds of times higher than the standard recreation dosage, as with LSD and psilocybin -- a trait not shared with the dissociatives. (Mescaline and the other phenethylamines unfortunately do not share this safety factor.) Cannabis also has a strong synergism with the classic psychedelics. --Thoric 08:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ALL pov! Plenty of people agree that THC is synergistic with dissociatives! The safety issue is also irrelevent, given that you say mescaline and phenethylamines don't share that (and mescaline was arguably the first or close the the first "psychedelic drug."

I also take issue with this: "Dissociatives are not characterized by 'distortions of perception' or even really by hallucinations or altered states of awareness." That's definitely POV, and from personal experience, I disagree. I could refer you to many people who also disagree. Also, you said "long term use of dissociatives such as PCP, ketamine and DXM have been shown to cause addition, whereas psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin do not." That's completely untrue. Neither PCP nor DXM are more physically addictive than THC or DMT. The only dissociative that has a half-hearted argument to show that it's addictive is ketamine (since test monkeys show addictive behavior with ketamine), but even with ketamine, there is no evidence for physical addiction (the addictive behavior appears to be psychological, like THC).Jolb 02:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV from personal experience because I do not (currently) have much experience with dissociatives, and am relying on studies by published researchers. As for the addictiveness of DXM... why not consult your beloved PubMed... Dextromethorphan psychosis, dependence and physical withdrawal. --Thoric 04:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

That study is not conclusive, for two reasons. One: it documents ONE known case DXM addiction, and it was for NON-recreational DXM use (it was for headaches). Second, look who it's written by: only one author working for "Addiction Services, Veterans Administration Medical Center and Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Wright State University School of Medicine." Similar slanted studies have been published about THC and LSD. Might as well cite the DEA! Jolb 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol, also, you misunderstood me. "That's definitely POV, and from personal experience, I disagree." I meant from MY personal experience. Jolb 04:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops ;) Okay, so you have experience with DXM (and maybe ketamine?) While you may characterize your experiences as "psychedelic" (may I ask if you also have experience with psilocybin and/or LSD?), most researchers in the psychedelic community use "psychedelic" to primarily refer to the classic psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin. I have some more references for you in the above section. --Thoric 08:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

most researchers in the psychedelic community use "psychedelic" to primarily refer to the classic psychedelics such as LSD and psilocybin. true, but that doesn't mean they excludes mind-manifesting dissociatives. Plenty of users use "psychedelic" to generally describe MANY drugs, anywhere from LSD to ether to N2O to Ketamine. As to my experience with DXM, I feel like I can say that, since DXM is legal... but other stuff? I plead the fifth :-P

Anyway, I think that since we've been arguing this for so long, near the diagram, you should cite Stafford and Kent. I think that those two resources are good, and they should be referenced right near that classification.Jolb 15:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anyone cares about this, and there's been not a single post on the psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants talk page regarding this. Do you know who we could talk to to get people to participate in this? Jolb 05:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings!

Hey, man. I think you're getting a little angry at me! A crusade? I hope this is just a friendly debate instead of a mortal war. You're a cool guy, and I'm sorry if you think I'm trying to slander you or undermine your efforts. I don't mean to, and I hope there's no hard feelings here. :-) Jolb 04:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)