Talk:Psychoactive drug/Archive 1

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

message: To whomever made the drug chart. It is fantastic and cleared up a lot of confusion for me. Before the chart drugs were a tangled mess in my head. This did a great job of clarifying things for me, quickly and easily, can this be nominated for a Wikipedia award or something. TimL 14:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why, thank-you very much :)  Stillnotelf awarded me a Graphic Designer's Barnstar for the design, but if you mean that this chart should be recognized by Wikipedia, there is always the Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates page where you could nominate the chart (likely under Drawings and diagrams).  --Thoric 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm I think there is a problem with that though as it is an image with text overlaid. The image itself is just the background. Not sure how to proceed. TimL 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I uploaded a 300px image based on a screen capture so it shows the links (still readable too).  Hopefully this will straighten things out ;) --Thoric 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accolades 

message: by request, and personal experience, i think cannabis should be replaced by marihuana/pot, and hashish should be added along with thc in the chart. Hashish it not an anti-psychotic in any way, but can quickly become the opposite. (89.8.51.44)
:Cannabis is the correct botanical name for the plant, while marihuana/marijuana is a slang term that was purposefully adopted to label the drug as something only used by Mexican immigrants during a time when the overall American populace held a strong negative view of Mexican immigrants stealing their jobs (around the time of the Great Depression).  "Pot" is also a slang term.  Hashish is a specific preparation.  If we were to have both cannabis and hashish on the chart, then why not have beer and wine along with alcohol, and crack, cocaine and coca where cocaine currently is?  The only reason I put cannabis, THC and CBD separately on the chart is because CBD can have an anti-psychotic effect, THC can have a hallucinogenic effect, and (most) cannabis has significant quantities of both.  Because there is more THC than CBD in cannabis, it is placed lower on the chart to indicate that it produces much more of a hallucinogenic effect than an anti-psychotic effect.  --Thoric 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not operate directly upon the CNS, and while there are CB1 receptors in the CNS, and the depressant-like effects tend to be more common, cannabis does not appear to directly stimulate or depress the CNS.  It could be that there are not enough of these receptors within the CNS to allow the cannabinoids to cause a dangerous effect on CNS activity (i.e. causing enough CNS depression to shut down such critical functions as breathing). --Thoric 00:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cannabis/marihuana/hashish

message: Definitely needs to be in the overlapping area between psychedelic and dissociatives.Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comment below on DXM. --Thoric 17:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvinorin A 

message: Probably needs to be in the overlapping area between psychedelic and dissociatives.Erasurehead 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my comment below on DXM.  --Thoric 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ketamine 

message: Should be in the psychedelics, maybe next to LSD
--TheJamerson
: As far as I am aware of, LSA is not hallucinogenic at all, so it doesn't belong here. It is a more a depressant, but not notable enough to get included. Any reported hallucinogenic effects of ololiuhqui are clearly caused by something else. If that's not adequately reflected in the LSA article then that article should be changed accordingly. Cacycle 12:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LSA is a psychedelic depressant, if that wasn't mentioned then it should be changed. Check my source Erowid Morning Glories --TheJamerson
Erowid mentions LSA as causing psychedelic hallucinogenic effects, and if I'm not mistaken, that's our most reliable psychoactive substance information source.  If I'm not mistaken, isn't LSA a milder form of LSD? 4.234.39.196 17:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LSA 

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

message: This is just a small point regarding the chart. I noticed that Muscarine is on there, and Muscarine exerts no effect on the CNS - if I'm not mistaken, that means it isn't classified as a Psychoactive drug. I won't remove it because I'm not certain, but maybe anyone who is more versed in Pharmacology can adjust the chart? Thanks  --Panentheon 26 August 2005 17:26 (UTC)
:I've seen muscarine classified as a (CNS) stimulant in some places, but maybe those were misclassifications?  Some references state that it has difficulty passing through the blood-brain barrier.  As there are muscarinic receptors in the brain, muscarine would have an effect if some did pass through the blood-brain barrier.  Maybe there is another chemical substance that would better replace muscarine in the chart?  --Thoric 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muscarine 

message: I noticed someone (67.169.38.235) added DXM to the psychedelic side.  While some consider DXM to be a "psychedelic", it still belongs in the dissociative section.  Please read both the psychedelic drug and dissociative drug pages for clarification to how substances under both categories can have similar effects.  --Thoric 06:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually DXM more correctly belongs to both categories so I moved it thusly.  See Erowid's DXM Vault and Non-medical use of Dextromethorphan.  The reason for placing it in the psychedelic category at all is primarily because of its action on serotonin receptors--see psychedelic drug. --Amor_Fati 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erowid's classification of a both dissociative and psychedelic is misleading.  The "psychedelic" effects of DXM are from its dissociative effects.  PCP has similar effects, and is also incorrectly labeled as a "dissociative psychedelic" on the wikipedia page.  Those pages should all be corrected.  This chart separates the distinction between a hallucinogen (for lack of a better broad term) which has a psychedelic (for lack a of better term) effect, by which we mean a consciousness expanding drug, from the dissociatives which actually have an opposing effect -- consciousness narrowing / fragmenting.  Ironically both kinds of drugs can result in similar subjective effects.  There is also a third subcategory -- the deliriants, which is the far extreme end of dissociation whereby the conscious and subconscious are scrambled to the point of switching roles, putting one lost in a waking sleep.  If anything, substances such as DXM and PCP lie between the psychedelics and the deliriants, although they are placed in the realm of the depressants due to their CNS depressant effects -- which is very important, so that people are aware that any substance in the depressant realm carries the danger of CNS depressant overdose (meaning that if you take too much, your breathing may be depressed to the point of asphyxiation.  --Thoric 16:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'd like to adress something I've noticed on nearly all pages that concern psychoactive substances. There seems to be a lot of scientific talk on these pages, and this page is the worst. I find this problematic because the scientific approach is only one viewpoint. Take a look at a website like Erowid.org, and you'll notice a very nice combination of both a scientific view and a personal/spiritual view of these peculiar substances. Presenting readers with just one side of the story is pretty unfair, I'd think, as the other side might be even more interesting for some readers or researchers that come here to find information. Things you could include would be the cultural and religious use of some of these substances, as well as the way they have been adopted by modern culture. Another downside of the scientific approach lays in the fact that DMT is mentioned as a psychoactive substance, but the Amazonian Ayahuasca, a combination of Banisteriopsis Caapi and Psychotria Viridus, (which is the chemical combination of DMT and Harmine/Harmaline, which is a MAO-inhibitor) is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Still, this brew is in itself a psychoactive substance, and worth mentioning: there is actually already a wikipedia page for it.
I can speak all I like but I believe this story will be enough for you to get my point. Let's summarize it all by asking the person that made this whole chart (which I think can be a good idea, but is pretty chaotic in itself) if he ever used any of the substances he is talking about so much, or if he just read about them in medical/chemical literature? - Roald Blijleven (I apologize sincerely for not having a user and questioning your integrity anyway...and for maybe not knowing exactly how to work with the Wiki yet) - 25-11-'05
:First of all, you are welcome to contribute to this and other articles.  To address your concern, most pages end up a little dry (like all encyclopedias) as they tend to contain the agreed upon consensus between opposing views.  This particular page is somewhat new and a work in progress, although it isn't meant to discuss the individual drugs mentioned as so much as to be a sort of index page directing you to specific pages about these drugs.
:As for spiritual aspects, the entheogen page is the page you are looking for.  I guess this article could have a direct reference there, but since the entheogens are primarily those in the "hallucinogen" (psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants) category, it wasn't clear if it made sense to directly associate the two.
:I created the chart, and I've tried at least 17 or 18 of the substances listed on it.  My preference is for the psychedelics, and have definitely had spiritual experiences.  In fact, they inspired me to create this chart (the original graphical one linked to from this talk page) to go along with a book on psychoactive drugs I am working on.  --Thoric 16:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychoactive Drugs, Generally 

message: I noticed that Diethyl Ether is in the Depressants category near Alcohol and Chlorophorm. This surprizes me, because I'm pretty sure that Diethyl Ether was a hallucinogen. I'm no expert, so I'd rather trust someone else to research this. Check out Diethyl Ether. Jolb 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ether article only mentions recreational use akin to alcohol (actually as an alternative to alcohol).  Descriptions from Erowid's Experience Vault primarily describe the experience as intoxicating (as in being very drunk) and euphoric.  --Thoric 16:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read more in the Erowid vaults. , , , and my personal favorite, Jolb 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strange experiences can come from heavy use of pretty much any substance, check out some of the alcohol experiences , , .  People have hallucinations when huffing gasoline, and other solvents like butane ().  I wouldn't say this qualifies every chemical solvent as a hallucinogen.  Ether could possibly be shifted down the hypnotics circle along with other gaseous substances that have dissociative properties into the dissociative (yellow) section... but most of the non-benzo sedative-hypnotics has dissociative anesthetic properties, which can put a person into a dream-like state.  The current lines of division on the chart place items within the red depressant area which are more likely to cause death due to overdose versus items within the yellow area.  The opioids are also able to induce dreamy dissociative states as well as hallucinations, but again are kept within the red area.  --Thoric 02:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diethyl Ether

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

message: Gustavb -- nitrous oxide was already in the dissociative section -- the whole right side of the bottom (hallucinogen) section is dissociative.  PCP, Ketamine and DXM were grouped together because they have the same method of action.  N2O has a different method of action.  I'm not sure all four should be grouped.  --Thoric 17:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, ok, but it isn't very clear, and it is not consistent throughout the table. For example, nicotine is not a SSRI, but if the upper middle column would be read in the same as the lower right, one could get that impression. Maybe the heading should be emphasized even more to show that it spans all the content in the column. I will revert my changes, however, as you're right about the method of action. --Gustavb 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's not too obvious (hence why it is stated in the legend). I can maybe make it more clear by adjusting the colors some more.  BTW, nicotine synergistically enhances the action of SSRIs ;)  --Thoric 21:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice the legend, it makes it much clearer. Regarding nictoine and SSRIs, you learn something new every day :) --Gustavb 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nitrous oxide 

message: It seems Nicotine is not under the sections ANTIPSYCHOTICS, STIMULANTS, DEPRESSANTS, or HALLUCINOGENS? What is Nicotine classified as? Or is it in a group of its own? Are Cholinergics in a group of their own?
:Nictotine is currently in the "Cholinergics" subsection of the overlapping of the Stimulants and Depressants sections. The magenta (purple) section is the overlap of the blue (stimlants) section and the red (depressants) section.  It exhibits qualities of both.  If you google: nicotine depressant (no quotes), you will find many reference to it exhibiting both qualities.      -- basically nicotine is a stimulant in small quantities, and a depressant in larger quantities.  Actually, many depressants exhibit this behavior (stimulant effects in low doses).  Nicotine is also synergistic with the antipsychotics, and have some minor antipsychotic effects of its own.  --Thoric 01:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicotine

message: I've finally figured out how to make the chart properly using a graphic and overlaying the links on top with absolute positioning.  Please check out my new chart so far, and let me know if you think it is far superior to the current one.  Yes, I know it's not done yet, but it's a lot of work to position everything ;)  --Thoric 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the new one, the circle going through cannabis eliminates my concern from above.  You might want to tone back the blue further from link blue, and perhaps move psychomotor stimulants down so that the words aren't split between a white and blue background.  Circles make for a much better Venn diagram than squares.  Great job! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done.  (Plus some other rearranging).  How does it look? :)  --Thoric 02:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's perfect!  I especially like what you did with sympathomimetic amines...who needs circles when you can use a cam? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks :)  It took me a couple days to figure out what to do about the sympathomimetic amines... I tried various elipses and eventually made a sort of egg shape ;)  --Thoric 05:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New chart (in progress) 

message: So is Cannabis classified as a Hallucinogens or in a class of is it in a class of its because it can produce the effects of Stimulants, Depressants, and Hallucinogents? Is more closer to one than others?--Zachorious 05:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Legally it is classified as a hallucinogen, and in the chart it is located in the middle, falling under all three classes, meaning that yes, it is a hallucinogen, but also includes the properties of both stimulants and depressants.  --Thoric 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: THC is a hallucinogen - auditory and visual hallucinations are a common trend in many users over many different levels of doses. Paranoia stems from seeing or hearing people/events that don't really exist as a threat. --Nutschig 12:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Said hallucinations are only documented to occur in very high doses of oral consumption, or sometimes in people who are particularly sensitive to the effects.  The same could be said about nearly any drug that is not normally considered in any way, shape or form to be hallucinogenic in regular usage.  The same could be said about nicotine, as for some people high doses of nicotine are visionary.  Of course these nicotine doses are at very toxic levels.  Anyone who claims to have experienced significant visual distortions from THC on par with those of classic psychedelics (i.e. LSD, psilocybin, mescaline) from smoking a joint is most certainly embellishing a great deal, or    their joint was laced with PCP ;)  --Thoric 14:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis 

message: Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants do not belong in a chart or article lumped in with LSD, cocaine, etc.  These drugs have little in common, especially as it relates to therapeutic value and addiction.  Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants are not addictive or habit forming.  There is an apparent attempt here to put every "drug" into a single article even if it has only a remote affect on brain activity or no therapeutic value.  "Psychotropic" medication is a term commonly used by the medical field to describe legal and effective anti-psychotic drugs.  It is not interchangable with "psycho-active." --24.55.228.56 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, they are in their own section.  Second, some have very similar method of action.  Third, anti-depressants and anti-psychotics can be habit forming.  Forth, there are other drugs on this chart that are less habit forming than anti-depressants.  Fifth, and most importantly, this page is of all common psychoactive drugs, hence the title of this article.  The chart is a careful arrangement of all these common drugs and how they relate to each other.  Your personal political views on which drugs have "therapeutic value" and which do not have no place here.  For your information, drugs such as LSD and cocaine have a much longer and richer therapeutic history than all the antipsychotics and antidepressants combined.  --Thoric 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The psychoactive drug chart was nominated as a featured picture candidate.  Please check out Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DrugChart and place your vote :)  --Thoric 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already voted to Strongly Oppose.  It is an example of subjective original research that is prohibited from wiki articles.  And shame on you for trying to toot your own horn rather than create an encyclopedic article.--65.87.105.2 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't self-nominate, I was only defending the chart, which you for some strange reason seem intent on vandalising.  I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject from respectable published researchers, and have also consulted a few experts to make sure that anything wasn't way off base and ensure that the categorization was correct based on established scientific knowledge.  None of the placements on the chart are subjective.  --Thoric 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  - and your vote was deleted because you weren't logged in. I nominated it because I have long sought to wrap my head around the relationships between the various psychoactive drugs, there are so many, and they deserve a good chart. This is it. TimL 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

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

message: If the drug chart is "correct based on established scientific knowledge," why is it constantly changing?  The original chart did not include anti-psychotics as related to the 3 other categories.  :Image:Drug Chart version 1.0.png.  Is the current chart scientific, but not the previous charts? Will the current chart be dismissed as unscientific when a new one comes out?  If the relationships are as clear and as widely accepted as Thoric claims, the chart should not be constantly changing.  The most recent chart legend states "Pink hue: The so called 'antipsychotics'. A new and controversial addition to the chart."  Why is it controversial?  Are there experts that would never include them in your chart?  (I can answer that one: YES.)  The chart is created from the mind of Thoric and it represents original research which is prohibited in wikipedia.Wikipedia:No original research --24.55.228.56 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not constantly changing.  If you look at the original chart I created in 2003 after reading W. McKim's book, and compare it to the current chart almost three years later, you will see that it has changed very little.  The major changes only involve additions, colorization and minor adjustments.  --Thoric 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm affraid I share 24's worries about the chart. Original research applies to images. Thoric suggests it is a synthesis of papers he has read. That is original research, isn't it? JFW | T@lk 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be OR if he'd written the papers.  Everything cited on Wikipedia is a "synthesis of papers" we have read, amongst other sources.  -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Until the relevant sources are cited, this is indeed in violation of WP:CITE, and if sources are not provided despite repeated requests one starts wondering if it is not original research. Your analogy is strange: everything cited on Wikipedia has a source by definition, which cannot be said about Thoric's interesting but fairly speculative drug chart. JFW | T@lk 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The headings and groupings are pharmacological.  I have cited some sources if you'd care to read the rest of the talk page, as I said above The drug classifications the original chart started with were based on those from Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition), William A. McKim, Prentice Hall; 5th edition (July 9, 2002), (Paperback; 400 pages), .  This book is used as a text in a University level course.  This chart represents the pharmacological heirarchy of drug classification.  As for the NOR comment, did you even read the article you are referencing?  Specifically with respect to original images?  "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy. Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures."  Not that the chart is original research, but even if it were considered such, it lies in a grey area.  --Thoric 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've noticed you added the McKim reference. Does that work actually have one of those Venn diagrams? Or does it simply rely on its classification? JFW | T@lk 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The chart relies on the classifications in that work, which are standard pharmaceutical classifications.  That does not mean that a Venn diagram based on standard classifications breaks the NOR policy.  --Thoric 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

text: As for images being NOR, a photo or drawing is artwork. This, however, is a diagram containing hard data. I fail to see how it can be exempt from NOR. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the hard data is based on published scientific/medical groupings.  If you feel that some items are incorrectly positioned, please let me know.  --Thoric 15:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Evidence that the Drug Chart is prohibited subjective original research

message: In its current form the diagram is highly misleading. It is in no way possible to arrange all psychoactive drugs in only three different dimensions. Every class of drugs has its very own and distinct effects and its very own mechanism of action. Chosing the current three "main qualities" of psychoactive drugs is indeed highly POV and disputable. Thoric clearly takes the arrangement too serious and tries to integrate too many different and unrelated classes into a way too simple scheme.
A simple version of the diagram could indeed be helpful as an overview and a quick entry into the complex field of different types of drugs. But the graphical appearance must not suggest more accuracy than the oversimplified scheme actually has.
Also the labeling of the main axes should be as general as possible and not identical to existing and distinct compound classes.
In its current form the diagram as well as the text of the article are not acceptable as a Wikipedia article and have to be improved and extended. Cacycle 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the simplification is an important issue with the chart. Psychoactive drugs can't simply be squeezed into three or four dimensions. Again, if the principles behind the chart can be traced to a source I don't see a problem (if that source is reputable enough). JFW | T@lk 13:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they can be, based upon the existing well defined classical drug hierarchies.  A quick look at any drug classification scheme will list most psychoactives as either a stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen or antipsychotic.  With few exceptions, most psychoactives can be plotted along two axis — a spectrum from stimulant to depressant, and a spectrum from hallucinogen to antipsychotic.  Certainly this is a generalization, but that is the primary intention of this chart — to show the general relationships between common psychoactive drugs.  The articles that are wiki-linked from the chart are supposed to contain the real detail.  --Thoric 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of article and diagram 

message: I have found a reference labeling antidepressants such as fluoxetine as stimulants (along with amphetamines, bupropion, cocaine, caffeine and nicotine). It's on page 110 of .  It is possible that SSRIs belong in the same section (but to the right of) the aminoketones (which means shifting the aminoketones slightly to the left, (and possibly the TCAs belong where the SSRIs are currently located, although they have anticholinergic effects, which means they wouldn't make sense being so near the cholinergics).  Would this be more accurate?  I really didn't think that the SSRIs were really stimulants (hence their current location).  --Thoric 18:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  SSRIs 

message: I may have missed something, but it seems that for all the general complaining that I'm reading about the chart, nobody is actually naming specific drugs that they think are mis-classified.  For example, is there someone here who thinks that morphine is not a narcotic and a depressant?  Or that LSD is not a psychedelic hallucinogen which also has stimulant properties?  Or that cocaine is not a stimulant that's a sympathomimetic amine that's a psychomotor stimulant?  I'm not a pharmacist, so I don't have the same expertise as many certainly do, but as a lay person who's reasonably knowledgable about these things, everything in the chart seems accurate.  If people have specific issues with it, then I think it would be a lot more productive for them to list specific drugs that they think are not properly classified.  If there's just a general concern that the chart gives too simplified of an impression, then the chart can be modified to note that it's simply a basic overview.  I'm thinking that most people will use the chart as just that - a basic overview of how various drugs fit into the different categories and sub-categories.  Someone writing a masters thesis in advanced pharmacology is probably not gonna be looking to a Wikipedia diagram for the sort of highly-detailed information they need with all the subtelties discussed.  Blackcats 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are kidding right?  I challenged the creator to show me a text that says SSRIs are anti-psychotics AND depressants AND stimulants. And not 3 texts that need to be synthesized.  He couldn't do it  Every textbook I have seen displays the classification of drugs in simple chart with horizontal and vertical boxes.  There is a reason for that.  They are not all interrelated, with most drugs sitting in multiple categories.  If the creator wants his creation published here, he needs to first get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Once we see it accepted by the medical community, we can then cite it in wiki and it won't be original research.  I will be waiting. --24.55.228.56 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which drugs on the chart do people object to the classification of?... 

message: So I emailed a professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and colleague down at the University of Southern California about this chart. He took a look at it, and here is he email response:
:Yes, I agree the chart looks OK. The groups more or less mirror the receptors that underlie the actions (which is good). 5-HT agonists (LSD, psilocyn) are separated from 5-HT reuptake inhibitors but they both activate the same receptors. From an effect point of view this separation is correct. LSD probably initiates its hallucinogenic action by activating 5-HT2a receptors. The SSRIs increase 5-HT in the synapse so many receptors are involved in the overall action.
:The legend says that THC exhibits effects of all three sections. However, it should be noted that its action is mediated by a completely separate class of receptors.
That last comment regarding THC is (probably) referring to the fact that THC has an effect on cannabinoid receptors. If anything, I would argue that this chart should also include nicotine as well, which also works on its own unique, nicotinic receptors. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This chart does include nicotine grouped with Betel nut and muscarine.  THC is fairly segregated, but I have no problem with the legend noting special distinction.  --Thoric 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds interesting, what are you proposing?  --Thoric 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A professor of pharmaceutical chemistry has some some input for this article?  Great!  Hopefully he has written a book with a chart in it so we can cite to it.  Unfortunately, the chart here is an amateur hour original creation that has no place in an encyclopedia.--24.55.228.56 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside Comments

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

message: Thoric: Obviously you do not understand the concept of subtractive mixing, nor combined effects. Anything in the chart which is situated in an overlapping color section is not necessarily under both sections (or all three), but instead belong to the section within which they are subheaded. The SSRI's are anti-depressants (and hence not depressants), and they are generally not stimulants. This is why they are located in the overlapping "no mans land" between stimulants and depressants. 
: Tangentially related to the debate over this article, I wonder if part of the confusion relates to the use of subtractive mixing to indicate that a drug is not a member of either group. However, in more traditional Venn diagrams, if something is in both circles, it's a member of both groups. Although if you read the sub-text you'd discover this, I think its misleading until you really study it. Part of the disagreement between Thoric and 24 seems to stem from this, suggesting that it is somewhat ambiguous. Limegreen 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That above text contradicts the text on the front page (has it changed?). Either way, I'm confused. And I think it's going to confuse others. Limegreen 03:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it would be a good idea to add another sort of a diagram to avoid confusion. Some more pharmaceuticals that might have a place on the chart: stimulants like dextroamphetamine and methylphenidate, MAOIs/anti-depressants; l-deprenyl, moclobemide and peganum harmala and ergoloid mesylates (a nootropic). It's quite difficult to add these so that the chart remains logical and stays within the rules. --85.76.249.83 00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dextroamphetamine is just an amphetamine, and methyphenidate is already on the chart.  There is room to add more substances to the chart without making a new chart, but the point of this chart is to show the relationships between the most common psychoactives.  This page isn't meant to be a list of every single psychoactive drug in existence.  --Thoric 16:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtractive Mixing 

message: While additions and changes are welcome to the chart, I have spent a great deal of work in organizing the current layout.  I would like to ask that you respect my request to discuss the changes here on the talk page first, before moving things around -- it is quite likely that things are they way they are for a reason.  Items in the chart are grouped and organized in priority of classification, effect, relation of molecular structure and potency.  Some items are located in specific spots relative to overlapping of effect, or close relation to certain chemical families.  For example, DXM is purposely located in the cusp of disociatives and narcotics due to the fact that DXM is a stereoisomer of levomethorphan (an opioid), making DXM technically a close relative of the opioid family even though it has no effect on opioid receptors.  Methylphenidate is in the amphetamine family, and cathinone is essentially a naturally occuring amphetamine.  Cocaine was placed at the bottom of this list because it is not an amphetamine, is very short acting, and appears to share more CNS effects with methylphenidate.  THC is the "psychedelic" part of cannabis (which also contains CBD, which has antipsychotic effects). --Thoric 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that definition is outdated.  The antipsychotic effects were documented over ten years ago PubMed:Antipsychotic effect of cannabidiol.  Also see Cannabidiol: The Wonder Drug of the 21st Century?, and also Clinical Studies and Case Reports.  If CBD is not psychoactive, then how could it possibly counteract the euphoric effects of THC?  --Thoric 17:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: So are the amphetamines, so are ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.  --Thoric 17:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent chart changes by 82.168.41.103 

message: Have added book by  Ronald Siegel, partly because he is an academic on this subject and because it compliments the what is already in the section A brief history of drug use . However, was forced to notice citations are still using an old foot note method, which contains a bug and makes referring to the same footnote more than once more difficult. The bug stops the auto numbering from working in this article, (maybe by the use of another template at the beginning).
Since the new footnote method can not be used interchangeably with the old format, I didn't what to add a comment in wiki code  to the ref section without a comment here in talk in case it confused the other editors. However the following comment added to the ref section would alert new editor to the new tagging system:
/
'''
But all the existing tags would have to be changed.--Aspro 12:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes

message: I think this classification is an excellent idea by Thoric, but I also believe there are some issues, already stated, with the idea that all psychoactive drugs can be simplified into 3 or 4 categories. I don't believe a venn diagram is a data structure that was designed with expandability in mind, and perhaps this chart would be more useful and less ambiguous if it were in a web or flow chart structure?
64.114.88.154 20:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These issues have already been addressed... on more than one occasion.  The categories in question are ones provided by science and medicine.  I did not make them up on my own.  While they may not be to a few people's liking, a large number of people are happy with this chart.  It provides a clear overview to the average person on how different psychoactives relate to each other.  If you have a design for a superior, yet equally simple layout, please go ahead and show it to us (on this talk page, or a link to a subpage, or to a link to a subpage of your user page).  --Thoric 14:36, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new chart 

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

message: I suggest replacing opium with opioid in the Venn diagram. In contrast to all other items, opium is a heterogenous mixture of several alcaloids. Opioid is more relevant. --Drguttorm 08:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An "opioid" is a generic term, not a specific drug.  The "Narcotic anlagesics" heading already links to opioids.  Opium is an opioid, as is codeine, morphine, heroin, etc, etc.  BTW, the only reason that "amphetamines" is in there generically, is because there isn't really room to list them all in that section.  --Thoric 18:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opium-->Opioid

message: Right now, on the chart (which is very good, btw), cocaine and atropine are very far removed from each other. While I'm quite aware that the subjective effects of the two drugs are quite different, is there any way their close molecular relationship (both being tropanes) can somehow be indicated? Tmrobertson 13:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to put some thought to that.  I don't believe cocaine shares any pharmacological properties with most other tropanes, and it is those relationships which the chart is primarily focused upon as far as layout and grouping.  Perhaps this could be indicated by color-coding the text links?  --Thoric 23:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular relationships & more

message: I'm wondering if the SSRIs should occupy the same general section of the chart as bupropion (and bump bupropion and  diethylpropion further to the left of that section).  Several publications label them as stimulants, and they have a low toxicity ratio.  I've modified the chart on my talk page so that you can see what things would look like shifted around.  I also feel that this may alleviate some of the controversy over the current placement of the SSRIs.  (BTW, I can also add a little circle around them).  --Thoric 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that all stimulants exhibit some sort of "anti-depressant" effect (including caffeine, but) especially the psychomotor stimulants (i.e. amphetamines), so therefore I believe the above mentioned shift may be the most correct action, making the lavender colored area where stimulants and antipsychotics overlap to be designated for drugs specifically classed as antidepressants (although now that area leaves little room for future additions).  It may just be that we need to extend the antipsychotic elipse into a full sized circle, meeting with the "hallucinogens" circle.  Then comes the question as to whether the two should overlap (antipsychotics and hallucinogens).  One argument for an overlap would be that cannabis naturally contains THC (the "hallucinogen") as well as CBD (the "antipsychotic"), such that cannabis could exist within the overlap of all four circles.  If I'm going to make changes to the background image, I might as well do it only once.  Please provide some feedback on this :)  --Thoric 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should SSRIs take a step to the left? 

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

message: For example Nicotine and Cannabis are both a stimulant and depressant. But aren't the two sort of opposites? A stimulant speeds activity in the nervous system while a depressant slows down activity in the nervous system. How can a drug speed up and slow down the nervous system at the same time? Do they go to specific parts of the body? Zachorious 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicotine is classified as both (although more often as a stimulant), here are some references:     .  It appears that dosage is a factor.  --Thoric 15:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: For example hydergine is missing on the chart... arent nootropics considered psychoactive? --ha-core 16:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although hydergine is an ergot alkaloid (which would make it chemically closely related to LSD), I see nothing in its article indicating it has psychoactive properties the way these are described in Psychoactive drug. Furthermore I think nootropics focuses on other neurological reactions than the reactions that are descibed here. __meco 10:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about nootropics? 

message: Excellent page and Venn diagram - was wondering whether cannabis really fits into all four major groups however. While it can certainly act as a hallucinogen and depressant (and probably as a stimulant), is there much justification for it being included as an antipsychotic? The only fact I'm aware of bearing on this is the ability of some suffering for psychotic conditions to self-medicate using cannabis; this is somewhat controversial, however, and (superficially, at least) cannabis seems to be associated with an induction of psychotic-like activity (eg paranoia). Any thoughts? --JonAyling 22:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the cannabidiol (CBD) constituent that gives cannabis a touch of antipsychotic edge.  As most marijuana sold on the streets is bred for high THC content, it wouldn't be of much benefit in that respect, and in fact would likely make things worse due to the THC.  Pure CBD has been successfully used as an antipsychotic.  --Thoric 00:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Where is this on the chart? Zachorious 16:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is there under muscimol (and ibotenic acid.  Also see muscarine which is a minor constituent, but can be responsible for some key peripheral parasympathetic effects (perspiration, salivation, lacrimation, sometimes nausea and dizziness). --Thoric 03:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amanita Muscaria 

message: Not mentioned once in the article?! not even in the links until i added it -- very strange. Even more considering this was even nominated as a featured article... --Espoo 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Drug addiction and substance abuse already had links... btw, the drug rehab article didn't wikilink back :P  --Thoric 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  drug rehabilitation 

message: What is the fatal overdose for cacti/mescaline? How many times the normal dosage is needed to OD? Is the San Pedro Cactus/Mescaline as non-toxic as weed, shrooms and acid? Zachorious 17:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on equal quantities of the active alkaloid, mescaline is less toxic than psilocybin.  Based on equipotent dosages mescaline is much more toxic.  In more plain terms the ratio of high dose versus death of psilocybin is about 1:250.  The ratio of high dose versus death of mescaline is about 1:30.  Therefore mescaline is about eight times as toxic as psilocybin when speaking of equipotent dosages.  Do note this is only considering these specific alkaloids.  Plant material may contain any number of less studied and unknown alkaloids, that perhaps have toxic effects of their own.  Based on a "normal dosage" of about 400mg for mescaline, you should have nothing to fear from taking a double, or even triple dose, but it is not recommended.  While there have been reports of people taking upwards of 20 times the standard dose (i.e. 8 grams) and surviving without any known ill effects, everyone is different.  When analyzing LD50 values, keep in mind these are for small lab animals (rabbits, mice, rats), and may not be the same for humans.  Also remember that LD50 means that 50% of the animals died at this dosage.  While it provides a good guideline for determining toxicity, you may also want to consider the LD10 and LD90 dosages.  --Thoric 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatal Overdose For Cacti/Mescaline 

message: THIS IS INCREDIBLE! WHO DESIGNED THIS? Colonel Marksman 06:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: user:Thoric did and I also want to thank him for this elucidating chart, it really helped me when I began learning the subject. Let The Sunshine In 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychoactive drug chart

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

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

message: According to the article on atomoxetine it seems more likely that it fits under none of these catagories instead of all of them. Either that article needs to be changed or atomoxetine moved or removed.I amnotted 07:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the article?  Here's a quote from it -- "The most common side effect in adults is drowsiness. This can be counteracted in some patients by measures as simple as a cup of coffee, or breathing exercises, while others become exhausted after a short while after taking the pills, and can sleep for up to 10+ hours. Some patients tend to feel lightheaded, dizzy, or "buzzed" as a minor side effect along with the drowsiness. To diminish these side effects, which can interfere with daytime work, study, etc., dosing time is sometimes changed to just before bed; as Strattera is long-acting, it does not "wear off" overnight. Mild hallucinations can be experienced under high doses (300mg)." -- I don't know about you, but the side effects sound a little wee bit like THC, and there are even trip reports on Erowid:  .  I placed it in the most appropriate place... and actually it could possibly be even closer to the psychedelics due to the visual effects (perhaps a little bit down and to the right).  --Thoric 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot categorize substances this way; like I mentioned earlier, the effects vary depending on the dosage. Alcohol may act as a stimulant on a low dose. Mirtazapine causes visuals on a high dose, but that doesn't make it a psychedelic of any sorts. Similar things could be written on all of the substances on the chart. What we need is pharmacological categories and not something based on a few user experiences. --85.76.245.168 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. They should be classified by their action on receptors in the brain. I also cited why the classification of psychedelic is incorrect (discussion at Thoric's Talk.) Jolb 19:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, you can group substances with similar action under the same blanket category regardless of method of action.  This has been done for centuries, and is still done today.  Caffeine, cocaine, methamphetamine, ephedrine and nicotine are all considered to be stimulants, yet have very different methods of action.  Both cocaine and atropine are tropanes, but I would certainly not place them close together on this chart.  The atomoxetine article may lump it with substances such as bupropion, but it exhibits significantly different effects.  The chart on this page takes into account both a drug's therapeutic dosage, as well as its recreational dosage.  Location priority is given to the major category within which it best fits, and the secondly in relation to other substances within that category.  This chart has evolved over several years with a great deal of care and research put into the best possible locations.  It has been reviewed by several experts in the field, and by far the greatest number of complaints come from people who have no clue what they are talking about.  Lastly, I repeat that the primary function of this chart is to bring a quick visual understanding of the relation of different psychoactive substances to the average layperson.  The people who take these substances via prescription or otherwise.  This chart is not for neuropharmacologists even though most would approve of this chart.  BTW, Jolb, I also cited why the classification of psychedelic is correct.  If you and others truly hate this chart so much, then feel free to create from scratch a new one on a sub-page, and then bring motion to form a vote on which chart is preferred.  --Thoric 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't hate the chart, actually I find it quite appropriate, but there's always room for improvement. Also, we don't want any pseudo-science style data in Wikipedia do we? Sometimes it seems that the locations for few of the substances on the chart are based on little tidbits read from here and there. I also do that sort of studying, but try to avoid making too many conclusions of it. It may be outdated or even bogus. --85.76.245.168 12:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atomoxetine

message: This section is TERRIBLE. For one, it should be classified not by method of action on each receptor but by each receptor and its action on it. For example: instead of somthing like this
:Agonists:
::LSD (serotonin)
::alcohol (GABA)
we should replace it with a classification like this
:Serotonergic drugs
::Agonists
:::(LSD, psolocybin)
::Reuptake inhibitors
:::(Prozac, Zoloft)
Plus, there are somethings that are COMPLETELY wrong. PCP is NOT a glutamate antagonist... It's an NMDA receptor antagonist.
I'll start working on it, but I'm far from an expert on this stuff, so I'll need help. Jolb 05:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ways psychoactive drugs affect the brain

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

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

message: I learned how to make a table and I added this one that makes the classification of drugs by neurotransmitter much more visually appealing. Do you like it? Jolb 21:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I like the neurotransmitter chart, I do not think it should replace the existing chart.  There is no reason we cannot have both.  --Thoric 22:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean that at all! The Venn diagram is great. I was just replacing the stupid one I'd made before with a bunch of indents. Jolb 22:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, gotcha :)  The tablized version is much easier to read.  --Thoric 22:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Chart 

message: Okay, so what I'm getting from this is that hydrocodone is more potent than heroin and oxycodone? I don't think so. I'm not sure if this is being misinterpreted, if it is a mistake on the drug chart, or maybe even something else. The 'rule' for the depressents in the chart is that they increase in potency towards the lower right, and hydrocodone is much lower, and spaced much farther to the right than both heroin and oxycodone. So... clarification on this? Anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.36.207 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depressants in the chart generally increase in potency towards the lower right.  Placement within items closely grouped are subject to aesthetic constraints as well.  If you have a suggestion for rearrangement that works better, please let me know.  --Thoric 21:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Psilocybin seems chemically closer to DMT than it does to AMT. Just look at the molecules. Shouldn't Psilocybin be below AMT? Zachorious 10:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect you mean that DMT should be switched with AMT on the chart?  Psilocybin is similar in structure to DMT, but it is also more similar in effect to LSD than to DMT or AMT, so I would prefer not to move psilocybin away from LSD.  The chart is edited under Template:Psychoactive drugs.  --Thoric 20:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psilocybin Should Be Below AMT 

message: The drug chart contains both valid and factual information and unreferenced-disputed information. Sign your name using 4 tildes (~~~~) next to a bullet point. The decision to add or remove the diagram will be made on the merits of the arguments and not by counting votes. Diagram will remain removed until a consensus has been reached to restore it. 
If there is a template for a poll, please replace this with the template.
:I don't support this poll and I don't think we should go by these ^^^^ stupid rules.Jolb 01:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it isn't optimal but we now have an extremely lengthy debate on the topic where valid points are being lost.How does one wade through the above to get consensus. An important step is to consider what an alternative should be cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is premature, if people want the chart in, they need to make sure it is completely accurate (as attributed to verifiable and reliable sources).  In the end, that's what will determine if it's included or not.  I backed off a little earlier because I saw an editor getting discouraged about something it looked like he/she put a good deal of work into, on a diagram which had been here a while, and probably will cause little damage if included another week or two (esp. after 2 yrs?).  But if it can't be sourced, and quickly, it won't matter what a poll concludes, or that an outside group requests and creams over likes it, it will have to go (or stay gone, whichever). R. Baley 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Have to be registered? What for? Just take the diagram out. It's clearly interfering with FA review. 199.125.109.34 05:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the only thing that the FA review pointed out, so all focus doesn't have to be upon it alone.  Also, according to guidelines the chart shouldn't be removed because: 1) It does have some sources cited, thus it is not considered to be "unsourced", at worst it can be considered to be poorly or inadequately sourced.  2) It is not advised to remove unsourced content that does not harm the article.  3) Articles written before 2006 are not subject to the same regulations as newly added material.  --Thoric 19:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont know why i put that, if you want take it out, i don't mind. but there might be sockpuppeting, or whatever it is called.All.ya.little.triksters 05:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Any chart, i don't care, just bring something like it back. Blah blah, i don't care about the dispute or anything, i just need a quick reference of it. just add a notice to it or something if its unscientific, all i know is that "The chart" has been one of the best references i've seen on wikipedia involving drugs.
Thyuji 22:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it will always be available here.  May I ask what you were using it for? ←BenB4 01:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back the chart