Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of hallucinogens on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
see also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants/categorization for categorization discussions.


Categorization dispute[edit]

I suppose it was inevitable that some from the DXM community would come to contest a categorization system which distinguishes between a "psychedelic" (i.e. LSD) and a dissociative (i.e. DXM) due to the fact that the term psychedelic has so often been allowed to be inclusive of the dissociatives (including DXM, ketamine and PCP). Unforunately this breaks our categorization system, and leaves us without a term to refer specifically to substances such as LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, etc. One user in particular -- Jolb has been very active on my talk page, suggesting that we toss out our current categorization system as it is "POV", and possibly even "OR" (original research) regardless of supporting references, as he and his friends can provide just as many (if not more) references supporting the use of the term psychedelic to include the dissociatives. I have several times offered for him to discuss this issue here, but he has not as of yet, so until he does, I invite you to check out my talk page, as well as his, and also to keep an eye on the psychoactive drug article, as this is where he is focusing his current attention. Thanks :) --Thoric 06:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll give a little backstory that explains why I think it should be changed: I'd read wikipedia and started using Thoric's terminology (psychedelic meaning a specific class of serotonergic or cannabinoid drugs.) However, in talking to many people, I'd repeatedly been told that my terminology was wrong, and that the term "psychedelic" was not a scientific, neuropharmacologic class of drugs, but rather a term to describe a subjective state of mind caused by mind-manifesting drugs. I did some research, and couldn't find any supporting evidence for the terminology I was using, but I did find two sources that clearly included dissociatives as psychedelic (mind-manifesting) drugs. So I went to wikipedia to see who put that terminology on Wikipedia. I found Thoric and asked him to cite some sources. Let's both cite our sources and see what others have to say.Jolb 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not see why anyone thinks that "dissociative" and "psychedelic" are mutually exclusive categories. A drug can be both a dissociative and a psychedelic. Of course, referring to DXM, ketamine or PCP as a psychedelic may seem misleading because LSD and mescaline are also psychedelics and this might lead some to believe that they produce very similar experiences, but this is not at all implied by the use of these terms. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

Just for clarity, one must note the distinction between a psychedelic drug and a psychedelic experience. While many things may contribute to the occurence of a psychedelic experience, including such things as lack of oxygen to the brain, or a blow to the head, this most certainly would not make such things classified as psychedelic drugs, otherwise carbon dioxide and sports injuries would be scheduled by the DEA. So while I am in agreement that "psychedelic experiences" can be obtained from the dissociatives as well as other drugs, I do not agree that we have to include them as such, especially when they already have their own classification, and substances like LSD, mescaline and psilocybin were the original proponents for the term psychedelic. --Thoric 19:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong in that you are presupposing that anything causing a psychedelic experience is instantly banned by the DEA. The DEA is the DRUG Enforcement Administration and does not have jurisdiction over non-drugs, such as blows to the head. You must realize how ridiculous it is to say that "if a tree branch causes a psychedelic experience that doesn't make it a psychedelic drug otherwise it would be illegal." You cannot rely on legal status according to the DEA to be the decisive factor in whether or not something is called a psychedelic drug. Plus, tree branch blows to the head are obviously not drugs. In reference to your point that the term "psychedelic" was coined with respect to mescaline and LSD first, I don't see why that means that dissociatives are NOT psychedelic drugs. Dissociatives and psychedelics are not mutually exclusive categories. Further, I would like you to give me a serious answer: If a DRUG causes psychedelic experiences, then when is it or is it not to be considered a psychedelic drug? AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic
Why did you switch discussion locations unannounced? Anyways, if you would read, you will see that I was distinguishing a psychedelic drug from a psychedelic experience. I never said that the DEA was about to schedule non-drugs. I would like you to provide me with a serious answer. Please supply me a list of some dissociative drugs that you would not consider to be psychedelic. --Thoric (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoric's sources to defend the current wikipedia terminology[edit]

  • 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."
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... (Osmond, A Review of the Clinical Effects of Psychotomimetic Agents) Osmond specifically mentioned several drugs that are not related in action to LSD, mescaline, and psilocybin. TardNarc
  • 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 (of the same book), about halfway down the page Weil 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."
On p. III-24 (of the same book) Dan Joy writes "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." TardNarc
  • 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.

How on earth do you figure that? Both LSD and PCP cause changes in thought, mood and perception. Both have little likelihood of causing physical addiction, craving, major physiological disturbances, etc. It seems ridiculous to me that "delerium, disorientation and amnesia" are not considered likely with either LSD or PCP. High dose LSD is just as likely to produce these effects as high dose PCP. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

In Grinspoon and Bakalar's text, the above definition is immediately followed by this text:
But this is no more than a rough guide; in the end, no definition is
adequate, because the psychedelic drugs have a vague family
resemblance rather than an easily described set of common features.
... Unavoidably, the necessary exclusions and inclusions will be
somewhat abritrary. (p. 9)
Further in the text, on p. 62, PCP's introduction in 1959 is included in a timeline of significant events in psychedelic history from 1949-1960. Thoric also apparently missed this, on p. 76:
According to data compiled by the PharmChem Research Foundation,
a California organization, the only psychedelic drugs now
generally available are LSD, PCP, and to a lesser extent, MDA.
On p. 79, the authors note in regard to a study that "[t]he term 'psychedelic drugs' was not defined, and to some people it may have meant PCP as well as LSD)." On p. 80, "[t]he only psychedelic drugs still rising in popularity (if PCP is not considered a true psychedelic) are MDA and psilocybin mushrooms, both prized for gentleness."
On p. xxi of the 1997 edition, Grinspoon and Bakalar include ketamine in their discussion of "therapeutic uses of psychedelic and entactogenic drugs". Grinspoon and Bakalar seem ambivalent about the inclusion of PCP as a psychedelic (perhaps in part due to its legendary bad press), but also seem to acknowledge that this is arbitrary and that others have used definitions that would include it. Further, they seem less conflicted about the inclusion of ketamine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TardNarc (talkcontribs) 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC).
  • This entry from The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Of, characterized by, or generating hallucinations, distortions of perception,
altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis.
A drug, such as LSD or mescaline, that produces such effects.
In naming two characteristic examples of such drugs, this source does not thereby exclude any other drugs. From my reading of the above, a drug that produces such effects as hallucinations, distortions of perceptions, altered states of awareness, and occasionally states resembling psychosis would be considered a psychedelic, and on that basis, PCP, DXM and ketamine are quite certainly psychedelics.
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.
I cannot fathom how he thinks that quoting a source that refers to psychedelics as "a rather imprecise category of drugs" supports his case that the term "psychedelic" has a precise meaning/application as "LSD-like."
The inclusion of hashish as a characteristic example of a psychedelic in fact explicitly indicates that "LSD-like" is not part of this definition. TardNarc
  • 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 [1]
I have contacted James Kent, and requested some of his sources to support his terminology which I will add here.
??? TardNarc
  • 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."
Thoric may have missed this quote from the same paper: "the psychedelic potency of ketamine is undeniable". TardNarc

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.

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

Can you provide a citation for that? While PCP, ketamine and DXM might have more potential for producing addiction than LSD or psilocin, this is not usual. Plus, cases of psychological dependence (addiction) to LSD and other similar substances are not exactly unheard of, just unlikely, as with DXM, PCP and ketamine. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

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

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

Equipotent in what sense? Equipotent in terms of visual disturbance? Equipotent in terms of changes in perception of time? How are you evaluating equipotency between these drugs? I'm serious. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

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).

Absolute nonsense. Dissociatives produce a sensation of being cut off from the outside world (derealization and depersonalization) but at typical psychedelic doses do not at all produce complete anesthesia. The perceptual and cognitive changes produced by dissociatives are merely of a different character than those produced by mescaline, LSD and psilocin. The perceptual and cognitive changes, however, occur on almost exactly the same processes (visual, auditory, tactile, temporal, etc). AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

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.

Not characterized that way by who? Dissociatives certainly do distort perception to very significant extents and distort many of the same perceptual processes as LSD, mescaline and psilocin. Dissociatives are more likely to cause outright auditory hallucinations and are known for mimicking psycoses such as schizophrenia much better than LSD, mescaline or psilocin (and I can find you a reference for that). AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

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 22:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Think of birds. Is an ostrich a bird? What about a penguin? Yes, they are, but they do both seem to be less bird-like than something like a sparrow or a finch. LSD, mescaline and psilocin are prototypical psychedelics. Dissociative psychedelics are not the prototypical psychedelics, maybe if only for reasons of historical accident (if PCP was discovered before LSD, how do you know we would not be thinking of PCP when "psychedelic" is brought up?). This does not mean that dissociative psychedelics are not psychedelics. I have not seen your dissociative / psychedelic / deleriant chart and I would rather examine it on its merits rather than take the word of supposed authorities. Yes, of course dissociatives are not like all other psychedelics. In some ways, "dissociative" psychedelics are to "psychedelics" as "penguins" birds are to "birds." The words "dissociative" and "psychedelic" both refer to different properties. A psychedelic is not always a dissociative. A dissociative is not always a psychedelic, but some dissociatives are psychedelics. I think that if DXM, ketamine and PCP are referred to as psychedelics, it is also helpful to point out that they are dissociatives as well, because that has significant implications regarding their effects. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that "if DXM, ketamine and PCP are referred to as psychedelics, it is also helpful to point out that they are dissociatives as well", which is why I don't see the need to add confusion by labeling them as "psychedelics" at all unless you have a definitive list of "psychedelic dissociatives" and "non-psychedelic dissociatives" (which would be referred to simply as "dissociatives"). If there are only one type of "dissociative" (whether they are collectively psychedelic or not), then calling them psychedelic would be redundant. The real issue at hand, which is something that you completely avoid discussing, is that we would have no distinguishing term to refer to the "prototypical" psychedelics. BTW, my chart is on my talk page. --Thoric (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Jolb's sources in favor of a less stringent use of "psychedelic"[edit]

Psychedelic effects of ketamine in healthy volunteers: relationship to steady-state plasma concentrations. [2] Bowdle TA, Radant AD, Cowley DS, Kharasch ED, Strassman RJ, Roy-Byrne PP. Published in Jan. 1998 issue of Anesthesiology: From the abstract:

BACKGROUND: Ketamine has been associated with a unique spectrum of subjective "psychedelic" effects in patients emerging from anesthesia. This study quantified these effects of ketamine and related them to steady-state plasma concentrations. METHODS: Ketamine or saline was administered in a single-blinded crossover protocol to 10 psychiatrically healthy volunteers using computer-assisted continuous infusion. A stepwise series of target plasma concentrations, 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 ng/ml were maintained for 30 min each. After 20 min at each step, the volunteers completed a visual analog (VAS) rating of 13 symptom scales. Peripheral venous plasma ketamine concentrations were determined after 28 min at each step. One hour after discontinuation of the infusion, a psychological inventory, the hallucinogen rating scale, was completed. RESULTS: The relation of mean ketamine plasma concentrations to the target concentrations was highly linear, with a correlation coefficient of R = 0.997 (P = 0.0027). Ketamine produced dose-related psychedelic effects. The relation between steady-state ketamine plasma concentration and VAS scores was highly linear for all VAS items, with linear regression coefficients ranging from R = 0.93 to 0.99 (P < 0.024 to P < 0.0005). Hallucinogen rating scale scores were similar to those found in a previous study with psychedelic doses of N,N-dimethyltryptamine, an illicit LSD-25-like drug. CONCLUSIONS: Subanesthetic doses of ketamine produce psychedelic effects in healthy volunteers. The relation between steady-state venous plasma ketamine concentrations and effects is highly linear between 50 and 200 ng/ml.

From the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology: Neuropsychopharmacology:The Fifth Generation of Progress by Henry David Abraham, Una D. Mccann, And George A. Ricaurte (these are three VERY respectable people, Henry David Abraham is nearly the top guy in the world) chapter 108 [3] is very in-depth and gives a good defense of it. Here's the introduction:

As defined in this chapter, the term psychedelic drugs includes

both classic hallucinogens [i.e., indolalkylamines and phenylalkylamines, such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and mescaline, respectively], "dissociative" drugs [i.e., arylcyclohexamines, such as phencyclidine (PCP) and ketamine], and substituted amphetamine analogues [i.e., phenylpropanolamines, such as 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA, ‘‘ecstasy’’)]. The use of psychedelic drugs dates from the dawn of recorded history and continues today. Indeed, in Western culture, their use appears to be on the rise. Despite the longstanding popularity of psychedelic drugs, controlled research evaluating their effects in humans has been surprisingly scant, and data from preclinical studies have been largely limited to the last several decades. This chapter reviews preclinical and clinical research involving indolalkylamines, arylcyclohexamines, and substituted amphetamines, for which LSD, PCP, and MDMA are used as the prototypes, respectively. Significant recent advances are highlighted, and promising areas toward which future research

should be directed are identified.

I also asked someone whom I consider an expert about this, and he gave me a SLEW of references. Here's what he said:

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...

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.

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").

Agreed. I think the key point is that psychedelic drugs are "mind manifesting." Some object by saying that this broadly encompasses almost every psychoactive, but I think that the term refers to "mind manifesting" drugs which produce a wide range of changes on perceptual and cognitive processes. LSD and ketamine are certainly quite different in their "flavour" but if you listed the perceptual and cognitive processes which they affect side by side, you would come up with nearly identical lists. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC) AlkaloidMechanic

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:

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;

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;

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

That's it for now Jolb 18:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Jolb's suggestion[edit]

It seems clear to me that "psychedelic" is a broad term that refers more to a state of mind than to neuropharmacology. The term was and is most commonly used to describe a visionary state that has more to do with self-knowledge and spiritualty and less to do with neuroreceptors and neurotransmitters. I suggest that we change Wikipedia's current usage of "psychedelic." "Psychedelic" now is used as a classification that includes only serotonergic hallucinogens/empathogens and cannabinoids. I think the term should be switched to something that more aptly fits these classes of drugs. For example. we could possibly use "Serotonergic Hallucinogens" or "Indole Hallucinogens" and "Cannabinoids." More important, however, is that we change the use of "psychedelic," since it's clearly controversial. Jolb 20:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The word psychedelic was created for the purpose of labeling certain drugs by Dr. Humphry Osmond -- specifically mescaline, but also including LSD and psilocybin. Unfortunately he died a few years ago, so we cannot obtain his personal response regarding this issue, but I am certain there are plenty of his peers who would be able to offer a satisfactory response. --Thoric 23:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Notice that there are already citations from Osmond's original 1957 paper (the one in which he coined psychedelic.) He explicitly lists substances that break your definition. Jolb 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, he coined the term before introducing it in that paper -- while corresponding with Aldous Huxley about mescaline. Secondly, as quoted from the 1957 paper, the substances he lists which are in addition to (or secondary to) mescaline and LSD are "soma, hashish, cohoba, ololiuqui, peyote, the Syrian rue, the caapi vine, the fungus teonanacatl, the two Amanitas, pantherina and muscaria" -- the only substances in that list which I do not include in the psychedelic umbrella are the muscimol containing Amanitas. As for his reference to the amphetamines, I will agree that the mind-racing aspect of the peak of a higher doses of amphetamines is indeed similar to the mind-racing experience of psychedelics, I certainly do not consider them to be on par as far as the whole-mind experience of true psychedelics. The amphetamine experience is primarily within the logical left-brain -- suppressing the creative right-brain. The psychedelic experience involves the whole brain -- expanded beyond normal waking consciousness. The dissociative experience is limited to a particular region of the brain -- less than that of normal waking consciousness. I seriously believe that not only are you not actually reading and comprehending my arguments, you are also not even reading and comprehending the sources you are citing. In nearly every example you cite, the dissociatives are specifically described as such (dissociatives) and also are listed dead last in the inclusion list, whereas substances like mescaline, LSD and psilocybin are always listed first. --Thoric 02:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Cohoba breaks the classification as well. Scopolomine and atropene are both anticholergenics. Jolb 02:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Cohoba refers to Anadenanthera peregrina, a tree with DMT containing seeds. Cohoba was the smoked form, and Yopo was the snorted form. --Thoric 03:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the contention that "psychedelic" should be dumped because it is "controversial." Controversy is inescapable in this domain, and will not be solved by fudging the nomenclature. "Psychedelic" is accurate and historically appropriate. While one may hallucinate while on a trip that is not the defining feature of these substances, no more than the rapid heartbeat or dilated pupils. But no one in his right mind would categorize them as "cardiac stimulants." Haiduc 04:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
will not be solved by fudging the nomenclature. Why not? There are numerous more appropriate and less controversial terms. Jolb 05:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
All terms are controversial, this one is also accurate etymologically and meaningful historically. It is also valuable since it comes from within the culture. That's why we call Christians by that name, and not "unbelievers", and Moslems thus and not "pagans." Haiduc 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. Terms in chemistry are standardized under the IUPAC and are based on the physical properties of molecules. They're clear and definitive. That's why we use mercury instead of quicksilver or ethanol instead of grain alcohol. Jolb 16:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be very sure of yourself, but it appears you are mistaking opinion for fact. Nomenclature need not be based on chemistry, it can be based on function, usage, history and many other things. You are free to subdivide Psychedelics into categories based on chemical structure if you like, but it seems futile to try to redefine the whole group. And I fail to see the purpose of forcing the use of the term "hallucinogen." It is blatantly POV. It may well turn out that ordinary consciousness is more hallucinatory than the psychedelic state. Your suggestion is premature at best. Haiduc 18:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that "psychedelic" as it was coined and as it has been used since refers to the alteration of consciousness rather than any particular chemical structure or pharmacology (Grinspoon and Bakalar 1983: 12; Nichols 2004: 131-181; Brown 1972; Cooper 1988: 2-11). I think that Thoric is incorrect on a certain point - because drugs like ketamine and nitrous oxide can consistently produce psychedelic experiences they are psychedelic drugs. That is how I see the word most commonly used.
Thoric cites Lester Grinspoon as ruling out dissociative from the class of psychedelics due to their addictive potential. I think he his misreading Grinspoon slightly in this case. Yes this is correct for the "true" psychedelics (mescaline, LSD, psilocybin, etc.) but it is not the definition of "psychedelic". I believe that the effects of true psychedelics define what is and isn't a psychedelic drug. That is, ketamine and DXM are psychedelics simply by virtue of the fact some of their effects resemble some of the effects of true psychedelics.
I think Jolb's sources clearly show that dissociative drugs with psychedelic effects are commonly considered psychedelics in their own right. Having said that, I strongly reject his claim that the word psychedelic itself is POV. Sure it is controversial, but it is my opinion that it is far less controversial and far more accurate than any alternative. A variety of names have been suggested over the years from illusinogen, psychodysleptic or entheogen to oneirogenic, phantasticant or psychotaraxic (Grinspoon and Bakalar 1983: 12; Cohen 1965: 12-13; Shulgin 1997: 401). Hallucinogen is an outmoded misnomer and should be avoided in both lay and scientific literature. Albert Hoffman preferred psychedelic (Lee and Shlain 1985: 55) and I believe that it is generally considered the best compromise between avoiding loaded language and accurately describing the experience.
Brown, F C. 1972. Hallucinogenic Drugs (Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas).
Cohen, S. 1965. Drugs of hallucination: The uses and misuses of lysergic acid diethylamide (London: Secker & Warburg).
Cooper, D A. 1988. Future Synthetic Drugs of Abuse (McLean, VA: Drug Enforcement Administration).
Grinspoon, L and J B Bakalar. 1983. “Introduction”, in Psychedelic Reflections, ed. by Grinspoon, L and J B Bakalar (New York: Human Sciences), pp. 143-152.
Lee, M A and B Shlain. 1985. Acid Dreams: The Complete Social History of LSD: The CIA, The Sixties, And Beyond (New York: Grove).
Nichols, D E. 2004. “Hallucinogens”, Pharmacology & Therapeutics 101 (2): 131-181.
Shulgin, A. 1997. “The Chemistry Continues”, in TiHKAL: The Continuation by Shulgin, A and A Shulgin (New York: Transform) pp. 387-599.
For more of my brief and tangled thoughts regarding classification of these substances, please see my talk page. Turkeyphant 13:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have to respectfully disagree with yours and Jolb's opinion that the Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin group is equitably "psychedelic" as Ketamine/PCP/DXM. My position is more aligned with the view that the classic serotonergic psychedelics (Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin) are consciousness expanding, overwhelm the senses with input, and that the term "psychedelic" best represents drugs that fit that profile. Dissociatives such as Ketamine/PCP/DXM work in a very different way, and rather than overwhelming the senses, they starve them, not quite unlike a sensory deprivation tank experience, and the low-dose dissociative visual effects are somewhat related to the hypnagogic pre-sleep state. Perhaps what we have here is a problem with terminology, but if we are simply looking for a word to imply that these substances induce visionary states, then there already exist plenty of words. Every single definition that you will find of the word "psychedelic" with respect to ingested substances will first focus on the classics Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin, and only refer to the dissociatives as an afterthought, if at all. I, as well as numerous others, believe that the dissociatives should not be lumped in with this group, if for the only reason that they already have a term to describe their effects -- "dissociative". --Thoric 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Whose view is it that "classic serotonergic psychedelics" are consciousness expanding. I have heard of classical psychedelics before and serotonergic hallucinogens, but never before seen that particular phrase: "classic serotonergic psychedelics." What does "consciousness expanding" even mean? Who thinks this? Who on earth said that psychedelics overwhelm the senses with input and that this is what the term psychedelic is meant to represent? I do not believe that for a minute. I do think that is a good characterization of the classical hallucinogens, but I do not consider that a part of their definition. I still don't see what your point is by showing that dissociative psychedelics are also called dissociatives. So what? They are both dissociatives and psychedelics. Just as other psychedelics are serotonergic and psychedelic. AlkaloidMechanic (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the above (psychedelics)[edit]

{{Psychoactive drugs}}

I like this Venn diagram. It is constructed by taking the effects of various classes of drugs, grouping similar drugs together, and applying a name each of these groups. Some of the fine placements are debatable, but not worth running from the mastodons, and I think the overall organization is quite impressive. Now, the term we happen to use to define one group is psychedelics, and the term for another group is dissociatives. On this diagram, at least, these two classes are closely related (they even overlap).

It seems this argument is more over semantics than over drug classification. Let me explain further. There is a difference between a drug having a "psychedelic effect" and a drug being a psychedelic. Both myxobacteria and slime moulds have a "fungus effect" when they form fruiting bodies, but they are not fungi! Even more relevant, Salvia divinorum, DXM, and probably several other drugs, have "deliriant effects", but are not themselves classified as deliriants. A drug such as Cannabis might even be considered an antipsychotic, yet in this diagram, it is placed far from the antipsychotics.

What I'm trying to say is that the broad use of the term is correct, at least as a colloquialism, but the strict use of the term is more correct. We could argue, for example, that psychedelics are actually hallucinogens, and cite the hundreds of articles which describe LSD and psilocybin having hallucinogenic effects, but I think this would fail to convince anyone.

My opinion? Dissociatives and psychedelics should remain separate, and the close link between the two should perhaps be addressed.

Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 22:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this diagram was developed by Thoric, so there is some bias in the definitions. But I stand by my arguments, which have a high degree of truthiness—straight from the gut! − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Twas. The term "psychodelic" is loosely attributed to the class of drugs known as hallucinogens, and drugs nearest that category on the diagram. The effects of dissociatives are considerably different, and should be treated as such. I think the diagram is an accurate portrayal of the subsections of neurological pharmacology. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A rose by any other name...

Why not open up the project to all Recreational Psychoactives? This would make a larger subcategory and a more broad focus, while retaining the mission of the current. This would definitely end the dispute. This might bring in more help, and shorten the name a bit lol. For example, erowid doesn't confine themselves to putting out reliable information about just psychedelics (or whatever you'd like to call them), dissociatives, and deliriants, since , as we've seen, a lot of substances bleed through categories. And again, most categorization other than broad pharmaceuticals is subjective anyway. (Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 00:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC))
So you are suggesting that we expand this project to be simply Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychoactive drugs? There is no problem with that, other than the fact that while we have like 50 people on the project list for subset, it is barely active ;) --Thoric 15:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we could figure a way to narrow the scope to substances that are used recreationally. A change like that might attract more contributors, and wake up some members that aren't quite so active. Then we could categorize the chemicals in a more pharmacological way. For example grouping serotonergic psychedelics, NMDA antagonistic dissociatives, atypical dissociatives, gabaergic depressants, etc, etc. And also have another focus on the plants, and giving accurate referenced information about their use as entheogens, etc.. The WikiProject Pharmacology reaches into all of the chemical areas, but a seperate in depth focus on the chemicals and plants of all sorts that are used recreationally might be quite useful, without narrowing down to just three disputable, as we've seen, classes of recreational substances.
I guess the hard part then would be how to draw the line of which substances are used recreationally. I don't know, just a thought. (Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 18:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC))
I like that idea. The social and cultural aspects of most recreationally-used psychoactives are very similar (because they are illegal and/or taboo); even though they are not similar pharmacologically, it seems odd to me to not include something like opium in a project that covers things like mescaline, MDMA, and cannabis. Essentially, I think that this project's scope should be the same as Erowid's, with the exception of most "Pharmaceuticals" (e.g. fluoxetine) and some of the "Smart Drugs" (e.g. human growth hormone, gerovital). ~ Danelo 16:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for Replacement of Current Project Image[edit]

Proposed New Image
Another image

As I've been planning to do for some time now, I propose that the current image for the project be replaced with the new image I've constructed. I believe it is of better quality and generally blends together much better. The project image is a visual representation of the project and the project's goals, as well as it (or a cropped version of it) will be used in any templates or user boxes necessary. Both images are to the right, with the appropriate labeling. Below, please add your name to your supported category, and beside your name please add any thoughts on this matter.

Please add your signature (#~~~~) to the appropriate category below, along with any suggestions or comments you have.


  1. Neur0tikX .talk 19:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


  1. 'oac' (old american century) | Talk 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC) - I'm not a big phan of either, but I prefer the current. The proposed has text in the background which I don't like and a color scheme which feels too bare.
I support the use of the "Another image," as proposed by Eloil.
  1. The original would look better if the text was larger and if the marijuana leaf did not have so much white around it, but I still like th style of original one over the proposed one, which looks more like a poster than an image. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. I think the current image's vivid color and light effects represent an essential aspect of the psychedelic experience. The new one is too bland for this realm. __meco 22:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, but personally I find both of the images a bit "busy". One possibility would be a diagram of a single compound, like how the chemicals wikiproject uses a diagram of ethanol's structure in their template. Another would be to pick an image of a plant with psychedelic properties, ideally one that looks "trippy" itself. I found an image on the commons of a peyote plant that I think might fit the bill, what do people think?--Eloil 23:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  4. I like the peyote picture. The wikipedia file picture for Lightstorm looks kinda cool. --MKnight9989 12:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  5. I dig the peyote. (Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 03:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

I have created a project banner using the peyote picture. It's posted here: User:Danelo/PDDTemplate. If you have any comments, please feel free to leave them on this project's talk page. ~ Danelo 19:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Input requested[edit]

There is a dispute on an article move. Please offer your input on the subject on Talk:Legal history of cannabis in the United States. Thanks. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 21:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New to the Project[edit]

Hi. I'm mknight and I'm new to the project; I know a little about marijuana, methamphetamine, shrooms, LSD, and ecstacy. I can help with any of these, or I can do basic editing for anything else. Anyone need any help feel free to ask! --MKnight9989 14:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Economic impact[edit]

I went to the marijuana article and looked at several related pages, but I couldn't see much about its economic importance. I am thinking of everything from the street value paid by drug users, to law enforcement disbursement, to medical costs and benefits. The "grow industry" and its impact on the economy would be useful too. If this is not the right place to make a request for such an article, please forgive me, and move this where it would be best suited. Thank you. BrainyBabe 21:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The states with tax stamp laws probably have some statistics on this. If you go to the NORML website you can look at the prohibition laws by state, and find out which ones have tax stamp law. I would assume for every pound of marijuana the cops do find, they are 10 more they haven't (this is just a guess with no actual evidence or support, of course). --MKnight9989 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Member userbox and member category[edit]

I think that there ought to be a category for membership. Currently users who flag the project userbox on their user page get categorized into Category:Wikipedians interested in drugs which isn't a project category. Instead there ought to be a Category:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants members which members could classify themselves in whether they wanted to display the userbox or not. __meco 09:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've created the category, feel free to add [[Category:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants members|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page to join. I've left a message on Twas Now's talk page about the changing the category on the userbox. ~ Danelo 18:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Twas Now's (very speedy) work, the category on the userbox is changed, so the userbox should now add users to the new category. ~ Danelo 18:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment department[edit]

Should this WikiProject establish an assessment department? It is my impression that this is an efficient vehicle for getting participants more involved in working with the project's articles. __meco 08:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know this WP had any active members anymore. Most the posts are from '06 and early '07. --MKnight9989 12:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There are about 300 articles tagged with the project banner. That's not a high count. Perhaps nobody feels there actually is a need for this project. Then it could be placed on the inactive projects list. __meco 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There certainly is a need for this project, unfortunately the members aren't all too active. --Thoric 14:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Establishing an assessment department is pretty easy, so I can do it. Then we'll see if that produces some positive side-effects vis-à-vis project participation. __meco 15:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this project could use an overhaul. I don't think this project is entirely needless, however its quite difficult to obtain clear cut information on an area of pharmacology that is quite subjective. I think maybe if the project were to direct itself on cleaning up all the current psychoactive recreational substance pages with drugboxes, and fix the pages w/o references, etc, this project might catch a bit of wind. This is a sub-project of the Pharmacology WP, ya? (Ccroberts( t · c · g ) 23:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC))

Proposal for project rename[edit]

Jolb has suggested that psychotomimetic may be a better replacement for the term hallucinogen (please see Definition of Psychotomimetic). The "psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants" grouping has been the focus of some debate (primarily initiated by Jolb) due to its particular use of the term "psychedelic". I also strongly encourage everyone here to take a few minutes to participate in the debate that Jolb and I have been having with regards to the definition of "psychedelic" as used within this project. Jolb's argument is that since the term has been used in many ways by many people including very conservative (i.e. only referring to substances like mescaline, LSD and psilocybin), moderate (also including substances like MDMA and cannabis -- the definition we are using within this project), and very liberally (additionally inclusive of DXM, PCP, ketamine, salvia, amanitas, and sometimes even so far as methamphetamine and the deliriants). While I personally believe that the moderate route makes the most sense, Jolb has been very insistent that we either stop using the term altogether, or use the loose definition (such that it becomes meaningless). If you have any opinion on this matter, I kindly encourage you to state your views as soon as possible. --Thoric 16:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, no one but you and me has an opinion on this. I think the change should be made, as "psychedelic" is frequently used to describe disparate things, but if nobody else has ever noticed this, then it doesn't really make a difference, right? I think this is a failure of wikiality, so do you think we should consult an expert? Jolb 19:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Very bad idea, I strongly disagree. Psychedelics do not mimic psychosis, that's a highly questionable concept and - thanks god - is no longer in common use. Cacycle 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment at Psychoactive drug[edit]

There is a discussion on Talk:Psychoactive_drug - a Venn diagram on Psychoactive_drug which some editors feel constitutes OR and is incorrect. Would be good to get some pharmacologists and or medicos in on it.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new project banner[edit]

As per the discussion on the project page, I have created a project banner using an image of a lophophora williamsii cactus, which has been proposed as the new image for this project. You can view it here: User:Danelo/PDDTemplate This banner keeps the optional parameters from the current project banner, and would also be compatible with an assessment section (which I (c/w)ould set up as well). Thoughts? ~ Danelo 19:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been tagging some pages with the current project banner, and have noticed that the optional parameters are never (or almost never) utilized. They can definitely be included in the proposed new template, if people want them, but if not, I'll leave them out. The proposed template, at the moment, has two optional parameters: the first is that the article can be assessed, and the second is that it can be flagged as requiring immediate attention. More can be added if they are desired. ~ Danelo 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

You can see what a stub tag would look like with the peyote image here, with two possible (albeit minor) variants on the wording. ~ Danelo 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the banner and stub template, and will update the userbox, to use the peyote picture. The banner was definitely in need of some cleanup, and there seemed to be a reasonable consensus on the project page to use the peyote image for this project (the debate was open for four months, and four of six posters supported it). I'm trying to kick-start this project as it seems to have slowed down, and I think this new banner, along with an assessment section, could help. However, if there are objections to these changes, they can always be reverted. ~ Danelo 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Project name and scope discussion[edit]

As this talk page was extremely long, I archived the topics where the most recent post was in April 2007 or earlier; you can find the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants/Archive 1. In doing so, I noticed that a great deal of the discussion revolved around the name and/or scope of this project (i.e. what we should call it and what, specifically, it should include). The name is also currently being debated on the project page. Due to the controversy surrounding terms like psychedelic, entheogen, etc., it is unlikely to be firmly resolved anytime soon. Perhaps it would be easier (and less cumbersome for those interested in discussing other things) to have all the debate in one location - specifically, a sub-page of the project or talk page (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants/Project name and scope)? We could move all previous and ongoing discussions, and have a note at the top of the talk page directing users who wish participate in the debate there. ~ Danelo 21:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Inactive members[edit]

As has been pointed out a number of times previously, there seem to be a lot of inactive members of this project. In addition to crowding the project page, having a large number of "Participants" for a WikiProject that is not terribly active looks bad. I've noticed that some other projects have separate lists for "Active" and "Inactive" members; perhaps we could do something similar? After a certain period of inactivity (e.g. no edits to PDD or PDD-related articles for three months), project participants are moved from the "Active" list on the main project page to an "Inactive" list on a subpage, which would be linked from the main page. If an editor becomes active again, they could simply move their name back to the Active list. This may have the added bonus of encouraging some editors to become active in this project again to remain on the Active list. :) I have taken a quick look at all the member's contributions and made the two lists here. ~ Danelo 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

support: this is a good idea, both for conforming to the ways of other major wikiprojects and to encourage members to switch to active, and therefore, to become more active. --Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 09:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. The active list is on the current project page, and the inactive list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants/Inactive participants. ~ Danelo 13:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs[edit]

FYI: I'm uncovering a bit of a mystery.

I recently discovered the List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs page was deleted.

After doing some digging, I found that on 27 July 07 (check the history), User:Madsci replaced a useful and somewhat sourced article with a much shorter, unsourced List of Internal Links. These last two are violations of Wikipedia policy and made the article subject to Afd, which it was. There were ZERO supporters for keeping the vandalized version, and no one discovered that it had been vandalized.

I'm looking into how to get an article restored. Any help is appreciated. If you can leave words of support here it may be helpful.

-- Bill Huston (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not terribly familiar with the article or the circumstances in which it was deleted, so I can't comment on either, but you can find the normal procedure for having an article undeleted here. Essentially, the procedure is to attempt and resolve the issue with the closing admin (in this case, The wub); I see you've left a message on their talk page. If that fails, you can take the issue to deletion review. ~ Danelo 19:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have reinstated the deleted article, please see its [page] and start to find adequate references. Cacycle 22:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
[4] is a cache of the article. I'm going to see if I can copy-paste it easily here: User:OAC/List_of_people_who_have_taken_psychedelic_drugs. If I can, start finding citations for people on the list. That way we can avoid this problem in the future (we'll put the article back up after we finish tidying it up).—oac old american century talk @ 02:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Moving proposals to the talk page[edit]

I'm trying to clean up/improve the project page, and the more time I spend editing it the odder it seems that there are proposals for changes to the project there instead of here or on a designated subpage. Would anyone object if I moved them here (maintaining chronological order, of course)? ~ Danelo 21:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As no one objected, I have moved the proposals. One (Peter G Werner's Proposal for reorginization of Psychedelic mushroom, Psilocybe, and Amanita muscaria) was from March 2007 and thus was moved into the Archived talk page, and the other two (the Proposal for Replacement of Current Project Image and the Proposal for project rename) had posts from April 2007 or later and thus have been moved here. ~ Danelo 15:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation templates[edit]

PiHKAL and TiHKAL are likely to be some of the most frequently referenced sources in this project's articles. To speed up citing them, I've created citation templates for each: {{CitePiHKAL}} and {{CiteTiHKAL}}. They are based on the {{cite book}} template; to cite the books, type {{Cite(T/P)iHKAL}} between <ref></ref> tags. Specific page numbers can also be cited by adding the optional parameter |pages=''Page number(s)''. ~ Danelo 19:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

A merger of templates[edit]

I was considering if I should include template PiHKAL into the source of template for phenethylamines. After all, all of the drugs in PiHKAL are phenethylamines. However, I cannot decide and thus have posed the question here. Thanks for help! --Use the force (Talk * Contribs) 02:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Would this mean that all the drugs currently in {{PiHKAL}} would be included in the {{phenethylamines}} template? If so, I'd probably say no. All the substances in PiHKAL are phenethylamines, yes, but I'm not sure all of them are notable/significant enough to warrant being in there. For example, I don't think that IDNNA would be a useful addition to the phenethylamines template. ~ Danelo 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

"Psychedelic" revisited[edit]

Jolb (March 10) discussed the "controversial" term "Psychedelic" and possibly replacing with three other categories, "cannabinoid" being one.

Interesting to learn that the term was coined in 1957, etc. Even today no consensus is possible what it means, because probably not one in 100 knows its derivation or what the root word "-edelic" means. In such cases by default the mass ear listens for hypothetical roots, including English ones, and the most obvious audibles are, for better or worse, SICK + IDYLLIC. That could indeed be a malicious but convincing interpretation what the word means. Exactly what parents fear their kid messing with-- based on the attitude "Get busy do your homework graduate high paying job soon we'll be dead then you can do what you damn please." Thence the controversy?

My own experience being mainly with cannabinoid, I thought of PROASSOCIATIVE as contrasting with the also mentioned "dissociative". This based on subjective experience with cannabinoid as promoting associative memory.

Apologies that I am not versed enough with the literature to support this with citations. Something as prominent in today's world as cannabis deserves encyclopedic guidelines as to its proper, as opposed to abusive uses; same for LSD and mescaline which I know less about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokerdesigner (talkcontribs) 22:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there (and welcome to the project!). I'm not 100% sure what you're proposing here, but using the term "proassociative" would certainly be original research. ~ Danelo 01:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately true, but I do agree that a term which clearly means the same as pro-associative, and published in a peer-reviewed journal would be ideal. --Thoric 15:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Illegal drug trade[edit]

I've just made a bunch of changes to Illegal drug trade, although the article could still use a lot of work, so I thought your project might be a good place to find interested editors. A few of the areas in particular where the article could use some tenderness include:

  • References, references, references. The whole article needs citations.
  • Update of many sections in the article's body. I've cleaned up the introduction and started work on the first few sections, now the rest of the article could use a fairly thorough rewrite so that it matches the outline and tone provided in the intro.
  • General fixes and maintenance. Once the page has improved to its full potential, being on a few watchlists could help prevent it from falling prey to wandering article syndrome.

Hope to see your edits around. Cheers! --Daniel11 12:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New article[edit]

I've created a new article at Drug liberalization. That, as well as the closely related Drug prohibition (which I've recently improved) and Illegal drug trade mentioned above could all use further editing, and seem to fit within the scope of this WikiProject. Thanks, --Daniel11 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


I was bored so i thought i'd make a template for it. just telling all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ian Manning (talkcontribs) 11:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The article List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs has been nominated for deletion again, please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs (2nd nomination). Сасусlе 21:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The list has been speedy deleted after a 5 min discussion, please see the ongoing discussion on my user page - I came under quite some fire for reverting an - in my eyes unjustified - speedy deletion a few days ago.
The following paragraphs are from the talk page of the deleted list, explaining the confusing background of the deletions and reverts:

Restoration of deleted article
This article has been speedy deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_who_have_taken_psychedelic_drugs) after the content has been completely replaced with a crippled version and the article has been moved from List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs to List of notable people who have taken psychedelic drugs.
The speedy deletion without adequate discussion was not justified, the arguments were either related to the crippled version and/or the changed title or do not justify the deletion of an article that merely needs additional, easy to find references. For many listed persons their article already elaborates on their psychedelic drug use.
Therefore I have undeleted this article, see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychedelics,_Dissociatives_and_Deliriants. Cacycle 21:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs
Recently, the content of this article was removed and tagged for deletion with the summary "BLP nightmare. Previously deleted, moved back in an abuse of a curtosy undelete and userfy" [5]. JzG then deleted the page under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material).
The page was not moved back "in an abuse of a curtosy undelete and userfy". The page was recreated and restored to pre-vandalism by me, not from the undeletion/userfication the wub made for Bill Huston (?). I have given a detailed explanation for the recreation above.
The recreation does not fall under CSD G4 as the deletion discussion was about a substantially different article under a different name. Please see also the following related discussions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants#List of people who have taken psychedelic drugs and User talk:The wub#redux: List of notable people who have taken psychedelic drugs.
I have therefore reinstated this article. Please do not delete it again without previous discussion and consensus, either on its talk page or in a formal and correct (!) AfD process. Сасусlе 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Сасусlе 22:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
BTW, this is the intro section of the deleted page (some people involved obviously think that it is a kind of defamatory "hate page"):
Notable people who have taken psychedelic drugs are notable individuals who have publicly reported on their personal experiences with psychedelic drugs like LSD, "magic mushrooms" and mescaline. Some of these comments date from the era when LSD was legally used in psychotherapy and experiments. Still others describe experiences with illegal LSD, obtained for philosophic, artistic, therapeutic, spiritual, or recreational purposes. This list consists of the names of individuals mentioned in the media, together with the instance in which their experience was discussed.
Сасусlе 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am thinking of creating a List of descriptions of psychedelic drug use (or something along that line). This would probably make it less of an "outing list" in the eyes of potential vandals and users concerned about WP:BIO and it would enforce the referencing requirements. What do you think and is there a better article name for it. Сасусlе 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate Thai nominated for deletion[edit]

This probably is a late notice, but only now I realized this WikiProject is interested in this article. Pundit|utter 01:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

umm...what the fuck?[edit]

why was the userbox picture changed from peyote to a crude sketch of a naked man and woman? how are these at related to drugs?--AtTheAbyss (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay I fixed it myself. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Definitely vandalism. Thanks for fixing it. :) ~ Danelo (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Any mellow people out there being harshed?[edit]

Check out Harshing My Mellow (disambiguation). I wanna be the SD (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD Blowtube[edit]

Any potheads out there from Midwestern America want to weigh in on this AfD?[6] The article, if sufficiently notable, could use some help at being expanded into a sourced and viable article. --Blechnic (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis within the scope?[edit]

Does cannabis count as a psychedelic, dissociative or deliriant? It doesn't really feel like an acid trip (psychedelic), it's not like a DXM trip (dissociative), and it doesn't make me feel very delirious, either. Chin Chill-A Eat Mor Rodents (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis is considered to be different things to different people. It has long been considered to be a "mild hallucinogen" due to mild alterations in perception. It is also considered to be a depressant (i.e. feeling stoned) by many people, yet it does not have a strong enough depressant effect on the central nervous system to be dangerous, even in exceedingly high dosages. Some people also consider it a mild stimulant (i.e. feeling high). As for a specific place within this article's scope, it is on the cusp of psychedelic. There is a very strong synergy between cannabis and classic psychedelics. Also note that consuming large doses of cannabis can sometimes produce hallucinations. Cannabis may also lean towards the dissociative side of things, as it does help one to dissociate pain, and produces a mild physical and psychological numbness akin to a mild narcotic effect. --Thoric (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC) See also On Being Stoned

What about animals, insects etc ?[edit]

Should Phyllomedusa bicolor and such be also in this project. See Ahabvihrea (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


For the sake of consistency among chemicals articles, I think it would be good to convert all the infoboxes for chemicals that fall within this WikiProject (such as everything at Category:Psychedelic phenethylamines) to the standard template {{chembox new}}. This template has advantages such ease of adding data, flexibility, etc. Any objections? -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

EL pruning at ayahuasca[edit]

there's pruning of external links going on at the ayahuasca talk page. please come join the fun! --heah 19:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Why is the hormone melatonin considered by this project to be a psychedelic, dissociative and/or deliriant? I've asked this on its Talk page. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake stemming from its inclusion in TiHKAL. Andre (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme[edit]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup[edit]

Currently, 659 articles are assigned to this project, of which 214, or 32.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Template at TfD[edit]

Comments on the categorization dispute[edit]

Just a thought--but rather than spending hours upon hours researching and arguing over a categorization...why not work on the articles instead? Categorize DXM/PCP/etc. as both disassociatives and psychedelics. Come to some compromise...drop the e-peens. PLUR (Oddly, if you drop out the love bit that philosophy/motto/whatever you'd like to call it applies to Wikipedia quite well.

TC —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to check timestamps...oops! (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (TC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants[edit]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

quick note: re cannabis cultivation[edit]

The article is substantially shorter now than it was a long time ago (when it included original sources and discussion of hybrid vigor, etc), and has a nag template on how it's now a "how-to" on how to grow up your own little drug lab of blueberry weed. I think if somebody wanted to spend the time doing it, they could bring back some of the content that's been removed (for whatever reason; I don't watch anything I edit anymore) and clean the article up to something of a much better "grade." I'd even be willing to be a bag of Cheetos that it could be made into a FA if somebody was diligent enough. There's enough material, pictures, and so on, in the revisions of the article.

But, I am not a part of this project, and I'm hardly here at Wikipedia at all anymore, I just figured I'd mention some low-hanging fruit for you folks. I suppose you could email me if you wanted to get in touch with me in a timely manner, but probably my talk page is not going to get seen again for a while. That, and I'm just not "involved" with the scene at all, and since I originally wrote the article, Lots Has Changed.

Keep up the good work. It's nice to know there are people trying to organize the internet's vast volume of information on PDD.

Cheers. ... aa:talk 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis by country[edit]

I have created:

The latter two are only outline stubs and require expanding. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Have now created Cannabis in Switzerland. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group[edit]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

FAR Listing[edit]

I have nominated Convention on Psychotropic Substances for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --33rogers (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:35, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)


I don't think that cannabis really falls under the scope of this, considering the move of several states to legalize it to a degree, medicinally or not.

Much of the information that is available about cannabis is misconstrued or false, so I'm not surprised that people believed information they found that classified cannabis as a hallucinogen.

If anything it deserves its own project, especially since it has its own associated following and culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attwell (talkcontribs) 23:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Cannabis has its own corresponding receptors in our brains, just as opioids correspond with our mu-opioid receptors. Phenethylamines and tryptamines, from my understanding, generally act on the 5-HT receptors due to their likeness to serotonin. To the best of my knowledge, THC does not interact with these receptors, and despite its slightly "elevating" effect on our consciousness, it does not deserve to be grouped with the psychedelics. Cannabidiol is a 5-HT1A agonist, however, it is not responsible for any of the "psychedelic" effect experienced on massive doses of concentrates or edibles, it is rather responsible for the sedating and anxiolytic effects. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe since THC (the chemical responsible for any "hallucinations" on major doses) has affinity for completely different receptors than the other groups of psychedelics, it should be treated as such, in a category of its own, along with endo- and phytocannabinoids. Any thoughts on this would be great!

--Bridgessi (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how one chooses to define psychedelic really. I don't see any harm in including it in this wikiproject, unless overlap with other wikiprojects is undesirable? 16:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Cannabis?[edit]

Any thoughts on starting a WikiProject for Cannabis? Clearly, some people have issue with categorizing Cannabis in a psychedelic, dissociative, or deliriant, any Cannabis certainly has enough articles to group together as its own project. This project could focus on cannabis laws, proposed legislation, culture, events, strains, templates, lists, etc. that focus on the drug. Not sure if this idea has been discussed before, but I think it should be considered. I am certain many wikipedians would be happy to join the group in an effort to improve articles covering the topic. Any thoughts on the matter? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't leave much time for discussion, but I went ahead and started the WikiProject. Feel free to come join WikiProject Cannabis to help improve articles relating to cannabis, its effects, culture, legislation, activists, medical benefits, decriminalization, organizations, etc. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad trip[edit]

In the article "Bad Trip", I found this statement: "Rapidly accelerated aging of other people may be experienced, irritating the aforementioned fears even more." This statement isn't cited, and I'm not sure what it implies; is the acceleration of aging in other people a common hallucination? Unless it's implied that this is a hallucination, it makes no sense to make this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Werner Stoll[edit]

Strange. I cannot find an article on Werner Stoll nor is he mentioned in any of the History of LSD related-articles. Viriditas (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

bias against dissociatives[edit]

I've noticed the page on ketamine claims that ketamine causes schizophrenia-like symptoms. I've also noticed similar statements in the articles on psychosis and some other articles. I find this rather odd because none of them have sources. YVNP (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Psychedelics such as LSD, as well as cannabinoids such as THC also have similar claims, so I would not say that these claims are limited to dissociatives. --Thoric (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This tendency might be related to the fact that phencyclidine is used as a model of schizophrenia. Google search: [7]. Aenar (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

John H. Halpern[edit]

Request that an experienced editor take a look at the John H. Halpern page just created. I suspect that the many spelling and grammatical errors mask even more serious issues with factual content. I would have fixed the spelling and grammatical errors, but I think the page may be so suspect as to be a candidate for deletion. Thanks! Jeffreybenner (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current article is of very poor quality. However I believe John Halpern is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia, so I don't think the page should be deleted. Aenar (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Recreational drug use[edit]

Google's private foundation is supporting expansions of the Swahili Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, and Arabic Wikipedia. (See this announcement.) Forty medicine- or health-related articles, some of particular interest to developing countries, have been identified as targets. Basically, Google has offered to have these articles reviewed and professionally translated -- and we'd all rather that the translators were looking at a good, accurate, globally relevant article.

Recreational drug use, a topic that is within the scope of this project, has recently been reviewed by an outside expert, who suggested several freely accessible sources and some factual corrections. Please read the comments on the talk page and see whether you can help improve this article. Even small contributions are very much appreciated.

If you are interested in helping with the overall project, please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Google Project to your watchlist, improving these articles, and/or contributing advice at the talk page. All editors are welcome. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, no admin assistance is required to move this project to the name requested or to make it a task force of WP:PHARMA. However, that is editorial work and should be undertaken by interested editors. Mike Cline (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and DeliriantsWikipedia:WikiProject Hallucinogens – Conciseness, see Talk:Hallucinogen#Requested move Lmatt (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment this wikiproejct doesn't seem that active, shouldn't it be rolled into a taskforce of WP:PHARMA? (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bath salts (drug)[edit]

Hello, would someone with a degree in pharmacology, please review the following article for accuracy: Bath salts (drug) any corrections with citations would be appreciated. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I gave it a quick look, and it looks like a very good article for a new subject. If there are any more specific issues about it, please feel free to leave a note on my user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Unsure of 2C structures[edit]

Can someone please take a look at 2C_(psychedelics) and help me out with this. The chemical names for these compounds are listed as 2,5 dimethoxy compounds with a substitution on the 4 position on a benzene ring. The 2D images on here appear to display the dimethoxy on the 3,6 positions with the 4 position correct. The 3D ball-and-stick images all appear to put the dimethoxy (at least to me) in the correct position. Whatever is right, the point remains that the 2D and 3D structures do not match up. If someone could take a look that would be great. I left a dispute tag on 2C-B-Marvin_Sketch, although I'm not sure if it's wrong or not. Thank you, C6541 (TC) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The structures are indeed 2,5-dimethoxy-4-substituted phenethylamines in both cases. They are just drawn in differing orientations. My preference would be to show the 2D structures in the same orientation as the 3D structures. I will do this in Chemdraw and upload a bunch of png images over the next few days. I'm not a huge fan (personal opinion) of differentially coloured atoms in chemical structures since it looks a little amateurish. BaeyerDrewson (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay sounds good, thanks for the prompt reply. I'll upload a couple as well. C6541 (TC) 01:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
No need; they're all done! :) BaeyerDrewson (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh wow that was fast, nice work. I like when everything is uniform. I updated all the 2C pages with your images. C6541 (TC) 02:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, C5641! That was my next job... I'm a chemist IRL so I spend a LOT of time drawing structures. Always happy to update medicinal chemistry/pharmacology pages where I can :) Let me know if you need anything redrawn in future! Take care :) BaeyerDrewson (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


This category needs sorting out. It seems that a lot of articles in this category doesn't match the strict definition of entheogen that is supposed to define this category. Should we stick to the definition and clean them out or change the definition? Also this category is a subcategory of Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants which is misleading since all entheogens in the strict sence doesn't fall into those three e.g. alcohol, tobacco, coca, qishr. I would suggest this to be a subcategory of Psychoactive drugs category.--Custoo (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you about moving into the other parent category. My attitude about categories is usually to be flexible about them, so I'm not too worried about removing pages from the category, and thus I'd be flexible about the definition; you could revise the definition on the category page, but it's not a big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured[edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that 420 (cannabis culture), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 00:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Extremely novel substances[edit]

This template has been deleted by consensus. You can see discussion here. Testem (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Should the [unreliable source?] tag be used when a substance is so new that there are no reliable information sources?

The article that brings this up is Bk-2C-B but I remember it being an issue with methoxetamine too. Bk-2C-B was thought to be to unstable to exist until a couple of months ago so there is NO data aside from user accounts.

Additionally, if the claim is that recreational use is occurring and a source such as a forum is given, with users discussing use, should that be marked unreliable? It doesn't get much more reliable than that. How about using a messagebox like this:

Current event marker.svg This article documents an extremely novel drug.
A lack of published research means sources may not meet Wikipedia standards.

until the article is one year old or there is a reference which meets quality standards?Testem (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think a message box like that seems sensible to provide context... Meodipt (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I put it back then? Incorporation into the {{notability}} tag removed the context from the messagebox.
Good idea. I've formalised it to a template: {{drug-emerging}} {{drug-emerging}} Catclock (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of novel substance articles[edit]

In the same vein, such articles can pretty much by definition not meet general notability guidelines but are certainly notable enough to deserve an article. I do not think the {{notability}} tag is appropriate. Testem (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Could use some fresh eyeballs and voices at this previously stale merge proposal, splitting the content at Opium Wars into the articles First Opium War and Second Opium War and turning the page into a dab between them, to avoid the existing content fork. — LlywelynII 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: 2C-O[edit]

An editor has proposed that 2C-O be renamed to TMPEA, using the requested moves process.

The discussion is at Talk:2C-O#Requested_move, where input from members of this project would be very helpful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Upgraded avatar[edit]

I changed the avatar image from peyote to San Pedro: Today the vast majority of extracted mescaline is from columnar cacti, not vulnerable peyote.[8] --David Hedlund (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC) We must be able to find a clearer photo than that, if we want to have a photo chosen on such a basis? In fact, on this basis I would argue a mushroom or pile of powder would be more appropriate. Testem (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments sought on renaming of Designer drug[edit]

I have proposed this article be renamed because despite the definition of the term "designer drug" being excessively broad, this article exclusively discusses recreational drugs. NPD has come into common use in academic discussions and does not have the misleading nature or biased connotations of the term designer drug. Additionally, this name is not widely used outside of the USA. Your comments would be very much appreciated. Testem (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible related portal[edit]

I am considering creating a portal to cover psychedelic drugs and entheogens. I think this is a good grouping for a portal, and i dont think that deleriants and dissociatives need to be included. If i do this, i plan to both create the template and fill it up quickly to a good standard, as i have worked on adding content to a large number of defunct or moribund portals. I think the best name would be Portal:Entheogens and psychedelic drugs, as it references the exact names of the 2 main articles (unfortunately those articles arent the best we have). other possibilities would be Portal:Entheogens and psychedelics (which flows better) or Portal:Psychedelic and entheogenic drugs (not mixing up an adjective like psychedelic with a noun like entheogen). it probably doesnt matter much. if others want to join in, fine but ill be able to get this up and running fairly easily. I will have the FA, GA and B/top/high class articles, broken into articles and biographies, and will try to get at least 50 images to rotate through. I will eventually add DYK's in groups, but will use the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants/Recognized content to check for articles that i may have missed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want to fracture the project like this. Why not just focus your efforts on your preferred articles in this wikiproject? We'd love to have someone with your motivation on board. Testem (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
If people want any portal connected to this project to exactly mirror it, then thats what i will create. however, my interest is in creating a portal, as i feel that readers could benefit from a single spot to help them navigate this particular fragmented subject, and i dont feel motivated yet to work on articles. if people are opposed to a portal, then i will drop it, of course. i dont want to fracture the project, i just thought that a slightly more narrowly focused portal could fly. also, while i know the pharmacology and effects are interrelated, my interest is only in the mind manifesting and divinity manifesting properties of drugs, so i really dont care much about the dissociatives and deliriants (which are relatively new concepts, as is "entheogen", though it refers to an ancient tradition, while most of the delirients and dissociatives are more recent creations). regardless of my editing preferences, i will go along with consensus, and if there is no consensus, i wont do anything. I will of course consider editing articles, and thanks for the invite to do so. (note my username and Argyreia nervosa).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
If you have no interest in editing then I would strongly discourage creating another wikiproject. You would need to lead by example. I feel most readers do not make use of portals and this would not be productive for them either. Finally, remember that brugmansia has been a component of ayahuasca for many years. Testem (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I didnt propose a new wikiproject. i am proposing a portal to accompany this project. So far thats 2 editors that dont want me contributing in the manner i prefer, creating portal associated with a project, a standard practice at hundreds of wikiprojects. My creating a portal wont interfere with anyone elses editing. I didnt say i wont contribute to articles. this will likely inspire me. but having editors that seem hostile to my intent, and cannot seem to appreciate my intent or my reasons, and dont seem to notice that i would now like to operate from consensus, is REALLY turning me off to this. I dont constantly remember the composition of ayahuasca, but i like to think that while working on my requested portal, i would have naturally discovered that a component of an entheogenic compound is (im guessing, from your comment), some form of delieriant or dissociative. in which case, i would have said "oh, then the boundary IS pretty fluid, they were right to include those chemicals in this project", and even if i hadnt already agreed to include all those chemicals (which i have done now), would then have definitely include them. I honestly didnt know that any of those 2 classes of chemicals overlapped with entheo/psyched, so thats my error. I hope that example of ignorance doesnt disqualify me from working on the topic. I can guess that the decisions to have this project include certain chemicals on the edge of the range of effects covered, involved some debate. Im not a complete expert, so i would start with including ALL the articles in this project in the portal, per my statement above, and add "selected articles", biographies, etc. which seem both central to the topic and of high quality, and not downplay some chemicals due to a personal lack of interest in the article. I dont have an answer as to whether portals are used effectively enough to be worth their creation or maintenance. I do know that some portals get dozens, and even hundreds, of hits per day, so someone is looking at them. I also know that many portals are very poorly maintained, so i would be absolutely sure that a portal here was fully functional from day 1. i have tried to revive about a half dozen portals, such as Portal:San Francisco Bay Area (at least 90% my content and structure now). ive also proposed deleting some really bad ones (Portal:Mexico City), with some editors arguing that a bare bones stub is fine, even if it doesnt help the reader at all, as "it may someday be improved" (i have a big problem with that, wont get into it here). so Im getting mixed reactions all around. I hate having portals where the contents of the article intros (usually just the lede from the article) are up to 8 years out of date, and intend with any portal i work on to check on them periodically and update the article intros to match the current article. ok, im going on too long. I am still welcome to feedback, and hope that someone can say whether they are opposed to a portal or supportive. I promise to not create a portal if there are enough people opposed to it, for any reason, and not just wary of it or my motives.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I was watching this discussion and, initially, I wasn't sure what to say. As far as I can determine, creation of a portal would be an entirely good thing, and I would welcome you doing so. But I think that the issue arises from giving the portal a different name than the WikiProject. Therefore, please let me suggest that you create Portal:Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. There is no reason why such a portal could not have a section featuring ethneogens. I suspect that doing it in that manner would remove the concerns amongst other editors about working at cross purposes with the WikiProject, and I believe that it would be a win-win. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Broaden scope and rename project[edit]

This WikiProject seems to be inactive. I think part of the reason is that it is too specific. Why not broaden the scope and rename the project to something like "Recreational and entheogenic drugs"? Sizeofint (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, and I would support that change. It might also be a good idea to put notices pointing to this discussion at WT:WikiProject Pharmacology, and perhaps at WT:WikiProject Medicine. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
perhaps a refined name that will catch the readers attention--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Sure 'entheogenic' catched me, but that wouldn't help much. Why tryWhy not try: "Recreational and spiritual drugs" (did I?). -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I find "entheogenic" kind of un-catchy, too. Maybe "Recreational and shamanic drugs"? (I think drugs can be used spiritually, but they can't really be spiritual.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I was only joking. A punishment for having to look up that word. -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I realized that! :) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Judging from the entheogen article, entheogenic is a catch-all descriptor for drugs used in religious, spiritual, or shamanic settings. IMO this makes it the correct word to use. As noted, it does have the disadvantage of being somewhat obscure. Sizeofint (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a subjective call. My opinion is that it's so obscure that it will counteract the very reason for considering the name change: people seeing it will feel like it's something very technical and outside of their editing interests, and it will be an obstacle to attracting more active editing. But it does have the advantage of precision. I recognize also that religious and spiritual are not exactly the same thing as shamanic, but on the other hand, I think that those are distinctions that we need not make in the project name. I've tried to think of other alternatives, and the best I could come up with is ethnopharmacology, which does not work, because it encompasses pharmacologies of all sorts, outside of the mind. Another possibility might be "WikiProject Recreational drugs", and just leave it at that, explaining the spiritual aspects in the text but not in the name. Doing that raises the issue of whether it is demeaning to those cultures for whom the religious uses are a serious enterprise, not recreational. I could live with that, but I can also see how there can be valid objections. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
What about "Recreational and religious drugs"? It has a nice alliteration and I expect people will have a better handle on the meaning of "religious" than "shamanic". Those people who are spiritual but not religious will likely take issue but I think it can easily be inferred that the project covers spiritual uses as well. Sizeofint (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Good, I think that's the best suggestion so far! I could happily support that, although I guess a case could be made for something like "religiously-used" or "religion-based" instead of "religious". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
As an uninvolved third party, I think adding religion to the name will do more harm than good. Some will not come to this project because it contains the word religion. Others will specifically come to this project just because it has the word religion. Having religion in the title may also completely change the direction of this project, and I can foresee potential POV pushing in both directions. I think the scope of entheogenic (and religiously-used) drugs is completely appropriate, but I'd keep the project name simple. "Recreational drugs" should be sufficient. --Scott Alter (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That hadn't occurred to me, but I think you are right. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think that is a good point and I am not opposed to going that route. What about "Recreational drugs and entheogens"? The weight is on the Recreational drugs portion so I think people will have get a good sense of the purpose of the project at a glance. Entheogen is easier to lookup than entheogenic for those curious. Sizeofint (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm still kind of stuck on the over-technicality of that term. It occurs to me that we could go in a different direction instead, by focusing on what the drugs do more than on their religious/spiritual aspects. And for the reasons that Scott Alter pointed out, it would really be best for the Project not to advertise the POV-laden religious aspects anyway. Perhaps: "Recreational and psychoactive drugs" or "Recreational and psychotropic drugs"? Those are also technical terms, but they are more widely familiar and their meaning is intuitively obvious. Our page on psychoactive drugs is pretty much what this Project is about, and psychotropic drugs redirects to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Are there recreational drugs that aren't psychoactive? If not we could just call it "Psychoactive drugs". Going this route makes it more of a task force within WikiProject Pharmacology - not necessarily a bad thing but something worth thinking about. Sizeofint (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the answer to that question is no, because to be recreational, a drug has to be experienced as pleasurable, and to be pleasurable, it has to be psychoactive. So all recreational drugs (or pretty much all, for all practical purposes) are psychoactive, but not all psychoactive drugs are recreational. (Naloxone would be a good example of a drug that is definitely psychoactive, but would not be useful recreationally, and indeed is used to suppress recreational drug use. And pretty much all of the medicines used for psychiatric disorders are psychoactive, but have either limited or no use for recreation.) I'd be fine with switching the order, to "Psychoactive and recreational drugs", as that puts the more general class first, but I'd be reluctant to prune it all the way to just "Psychoactive drugs", because that would actually expand the topic area to include all the medical drugs. I also continue to be OK with just "Recreational drugs". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I like "Psychoactive and recreational drugs". If we have consensus going with this I suppose the next steps are to move the page and change the project banner template. Sizeofint (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. Let's give it a few days in case any other editors disagree, and if not, then we should go ahead as you described. Thanks for raising the issue in the first place. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)