Talk:Hallucinogen/Archive 1

message: This text was at Hallucinogens and should be integrated into this article:
An hallucinogen is a non-addictive narcotic substance that produce in humans altered sense-perceptions or states of consciousness.  There are a great variety of plants and fungi with hallucinogenic properties, as well as synthetic hallucinogens.  
Almost all hallucinogens contain nitrogen and are classified as alkaloids; plant hallucinogens often have chemical structures similar to those of human hormones involved in brain biochemistry.  
As with all toxins, whether the effect is medicinal, narcotic, or poisonous depends on the dosage.
Whether the use of hallucinogens is unregulated, regulated, or prohibited, and whether hallucinogens are used for recreational, medicinal, or spiritual purposes, varies from culture to culture.
Among the most well-known hallucinogenic plants and fungi are:
* Fly Agaric (Amanita muscaria)
* Petyote (Lophophora williamsii)
* Deadly Nightshade (Atropa)
* Henbane (Hyoscyamus)
* Mandrake (Mandragora)
* Marihuana (Cannabis)
* Ergot (Claviceps)
* Thorn Apple (Datora)
* Iboga (Tabernanthe)
* Ayahuasca (Banisteriopsis)
* Floripondio (Brugmansia)
* Peyote (Lophophora)
* Various mushrooms (Conocybe, Panaeolus, Psilocybe, Stropharia)
* San Pedro (Trichocereus)
* Badoh Negro (Ipomoea)
* Ololiuqui (Turbina)
* Epená (Virola)
See Richard Evans Schultes and Albert Hoffman, Plants of the Gods
--Cacycle 21:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from ''[[Hallucinogens]]'' 

message: Moved from article. Sources, like these, do not belong in the article. Rather, they should be here for verification and research purposes.
* 
* 
* 
- Centrx 20:31, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for death penalty 

message: What is happening with the mass of material deleted from this article today? If a good explanation is not forthcoming, it should be restored. Haiduc 22:59, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted material 

message: Should not the deliriants, muscimol, antihistamines, etc all be sub-headings under the dissociative heading? --Thoric 16:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say yes, although they haven't been recategorized yet.  perhaps i'll do that now . . .  --Heah (talk) 15:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissociatives 

message: The psychedelic (mind manifesting) drugs are classified as those whose primary action is that of enhancing or amplifying the thought processes of the brain typically through the disabling of filters which block or suppress unimportant or undesired signals to the conscious mind from other parts of the brain, including but not limited to the senses, emotions, memories and the unconscious (or subconscious) mind.  This effect is sometimes referred to as mind expanding, or consciousness expanding as your conscious mind becomes aware of (or sometimes assaulted by) things normally inaccessable to it.  At high levels this can become very overwhelming, and can result in achieving a dissociative state.
Classic psychedelics include LSD (acid), psilocybin (magic mushrooms), mescaline (peyote), LSA (morning glory seeds) and also Ayahuasca.  Some of the synthetic "club drugs" such as MDMA (ecstasy), 2C-B (nexus), DOM (STP) and 5-MeO-DIPT (Foxy Methoxy) which have much more specific action to particular aspects of the psyche are also classed as psychedelics, as well as cannabis (marijuana).
Some psychedelics (namely LSD, psilocybin and cannabis) are extremely non-toxic, making it nearly impossible to physically overdose.
=== Serotonergic Psychedelics? ===
Perhaps there should be a link to the Serotonergic psychedelics article in the 'Psychedelics' category?  Not sure if said article is up to the standards, it could probably use some attention, but since you're sorting these entries in effect by method of action, this seems to make sense to me.  Overand 05:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychedelics 

message: Perhaps there should be a link to the Serotonergic psychedelics article in the 'Psychedelics' category?  Not sure if said article is up to the standards, it could probably use some attention, but since you're sorting these entries in effect by method of action, this seems to make sense to me.  Overand 05:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serotonergic Psychedelics? 

message: Certain drugs can alter sensory perceptions, elicit alternate states of consciousness, or cause hallucinations. This group of pharmacological agents which primarily change the subjective qualities of perception, thought or emotion can be subdivided into three broad categories, psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants.
All of these agents act as neurotransmitter mimics, often as agonists or antagonists at neurotransmitter receptors. Their effects are clearly different from stimulants like cocaine or amphetamines, although hallucinogens do often increase alertness or activity. 
The broad term "hallucinogen" is often used as a synonym for these substances, especially in the current scientific literature. [to be continued] Haiduc 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro draft 

message: I really like the work that Haiduc has put into this, and I think we should adopt his language as a starting point for refactoring the current article. Whig 15:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I did the drafts for the psychedelic, dissociative, deliriant sections (check history) ;)  --Thoric 17:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments on Haiduc draft 

message: Now we need to clean up the rest of the article, since it references "hallucinogens" all through it, and also tidy up the pharmacology stuff.  Should specifics about the major sections be left for individual pages?  There are already pages for dissociative drug and deliriant (which unfortunately don't contain all that much info).  The psychedelic page contains general information and directs people to the Hallucinogenic drug page for drug details... but instead we should take them to a psychedelic drug page instead to keep this as more of a general quasi-disambiguation page. --Thoric 18:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Myristicin" is similar in effect to cannabis, albeit more stoning and with a longer duration of effect. Technically we don't actually know that myristicin is the active constituent in nutmeg but this is believed to be the case. Elemecin is also considered to be possible and in any case there are other compounds present that may impart an effect. I don't know that experiments have been performed with myristicin apart from nutmeg, so really this one should be moved to Nutmeg (drug) or something. In any case, not dissociative/deliriant. Maybe we need another category for "stoning" effects but psychedelic works for this if it does for cannabis. Whig 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, btw, sorry for misattributing to Haiduc, your work was quite excellent Thoric, and I didn't check the history but saw the signature at the bottom and assumed that the work was his. Whig 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem .. and thanks :)  I've cleaned up some things a little, but lots left still to do... I've done all I can for today ;) --Thoric 23:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Much left to do in restructuring article 

message: Thoric, 
I tried posting this earlier, but I can't seem to find it online now.  Just in case you didn't see it, here it is again:
Sources
Well, looking over it again i'm second guessing whether this makes sense, but I'm pretty sure it does. Tell me what you think, most of my sources were from previous wikipedia sites on the individual topics. Here they are in full:
"...psychedelics can radically change various neurotransmitter levels..."
       This is an interpretation of the statement, "All of these agents act as neurotransmitter mimics, often as agonists or 
       antagonists at neurotransmitter receptors," from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogens, because agonizing or
       antagonizing neurotransmitter receptors radically alters neurotransmitter levels.
"...they may be directly responsible for various mental illnesses in long-term users,"
       This is what I'm trying to prove.
"excess release of neurotransmitters results in excess release of their paired free radicals (2 H+ atoms are released for each seretonin, norepinephrine, dopamine, histamine, or acetycholine release)."
       This part I'm re-thinking.  Under "Pharmacological classes of hallucinogens" at 
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogens, empathogens and entactogens are considered to be serotonin releasers.  The 
       synaptic vessecles are what release neurotransmitters like serotonin.  On 
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_vessicle, it says that norepinephrine, dopamine, histamine, serotonin and 
       acetylcholine realease all have an inward movement of "neurotransmitter+."  Since I'm pretty sure neurotransmitters 
       normally don't have un-paired electrons, with the exception of acetecholine, neurotransmitter+ would indicate that the 
       neurotransmitter molecule had an unpaired electron.  "Free Radicals" are defined as "atomic or molecular species with 
       unpaired electrons on an otherwise open shell configuration". on "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radical.  
       So neurtransmitter+ would be a free radical, no?  I guess I might want to rephrase the sentence to not include the part
       about 2 H+ atoms because that kind of confuses things, perhaps you could edit it to sound a little more like I 
       explained here?  Maybe something like, "excess release of neurotransmitters results in the exces release of free 
       radicals, because some neurotransmitters released from the synaptic vessecle are themselve's free radicals."
"Because of their known correlation with cell damage, it has been postulated that free radicals are involved in many types of 
mental illnesses, including: Parkinson's disease, senility, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's."
       There is already a direct link to this on the page, but here it is again: 
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radicals#Free_radicals_in_biology.
"In summary, the increase in free-radicals associated with long-term drug use may be more than the healthy amount for a typical person's body to handle"
       Certain drugs, like LSD, have a high affinity for certain receptor cites and can push neurotransmitters to levels far
       exceeding normal, non-drug induced life.  Here is a pic from wikipedia:  
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LSDaffinities.GIF.
"Therefore, certain parts of the brain and body (including DNA) may be degraded permanently over time."
       This is also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_radicals#Free_radicals_in_biology, which talks about free radicals,
       ageing, and DNA.  Interestingly enough, "free radicals contribute to alcohol-induced liver damage, perhaps 
       more than alcohol itself," and, "Radicals in cigarette smoke have been implicated in inactivation of alpha 1-
       antitrypsin in the lung. This process promotes the development of emphysema."  So although "illegal" drugs have not
       been tested for a link to free radicals, alcohol and tobacco have.
Although, I would like to make the distinction that this is merely a theory made from linking different data together in a logical pattern of sequencing from supporting evidence. I don't think anyone has actually tested the long-term effects of hallucingoens being linked to the increase in neurotransmitter levels.
169.233.30.31 00:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurotransmitters as free radicals (causing mental illness) 

message: I tried to clean it up a bit, but I'm still not satisfied with the end result.  What do you think?
:The stuff here on the talk page is a little hard to follow, but my question to you is -- how do psychedelics specifically cause the issues you mention over and beyond any other psychoactive?  If psychedelics cause less physical harm than alcohol, why should it be emphasized here, and not on the alcohol page?  The same arguments you mention above could be used against many medications, and even foods such as chocolate.  Personally I would argue that some psychedelics have not been proven to have significant negative long term effects.  The doctor who first synthesized LSD over 60 years ago (Albert Hofmann) is still alive and of sound mind at age 100.  Of course we don't know how many times he used LSD beyond the few occasions that are documented.  --Thoric 22:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...continued 

message: sounds good.  we already have information for a few categories:  amphetamine psychosis, onsley's lessions, and now neurotransmitters acting as free radicals.  i think the neurotransmitter article would benefit from using another edit or two, though, to make it as neutral as possible.  i.e. the fact that there have been NO studies (that I know of) on this specific matter and that it is merely correlational.  example:
1. fact: certain seretogenic drugs release a larger than normal amount of seretonin from the synaptic vessecles.
2. fact: these neurotransmitters have a positive charge, which means they have an unpaired electron.
3. fact: molecules that have unpaired electrons are known as "free radicals"
4. fact: free-radicals have been linked to certain mental illnesses, mainly alzheimers, schizophrenia, and Parkinson's Disease.
So, by the laws of correlation, it is quite possible that certain drugs aid in the progression of mental illness due to the fact that they are free-radicals when released from the synaptic vessecle.
: The second "fact" is not true, positively charged amines (as well as H+ and carbocations) are not free radicals and they do not have unpaired electrons. Please stop posting crude theories, this page is for discussing the article. Cacycle 01:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, i agree.  studies have not been able to find any correlation between schizophrenia etc and psychedelic use, and until they do, we're not making that connection here.  (and the study has nothing to do with linking free radicals and psychedelics or diseases either, it has to do with controlled studies examining rates of mental illness among a control population and among psychedelic users, studies that have always failed to find a correlation.  --heah 01:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  still cont. 

message: Good work on the article, it reads a lot smoother and makes a lot more sense now.  Thanks for the edit.
-Dr.Bane
Dr. Bane 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thanks 

message: Why is this article not only misspelled by capitalized in violation of MoS?  User:Zoe|(talk) 00:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: vandalism.  I thought i had fixed it all, but for some reason the talk page didn't move, and i accidently moved it back to a capitalized version of "Psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants".  It should all be fixed now, give me a heads up if it isn't.  --heah 01:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ?????

message: The third paragraph needs serious editing.
It is helpful that the paragraph recognizes that "hallucinations of various kinds are only one of many effects produced" by the (overbroad) array of substances referred to by this article.
However, there are basic errors. For example: it has long been recognized, by virtually every student who has studied the topic, that pharmacology has a relatively small role in the content of 'hallucinogenic experience.' Thus, the statement that "The nature of the hallucinations produced is dependent on the specific compound" is misleading. While certain kinds of visual effects, such as "tracers" or afterimages are quite common, these do not qualify as "hallucinations."
This brings up another problem. Following the link to "hallucination," one quickly learns the basic distiction between "hallucinations" and "illusions" in the literature. And in fact, "hallucinations" in the sense given in the link ("a sensory perception experienced in the absence of an external stimulus") are extremely rare with the vast majority of the drugs covered by this article. The paragraph therefore introduces a major confusion in a prominent spot in the article. 
(As others have suggested, probably "deliriants" and "dissociatives" should have their own articles, as their modes of action and effects are so different from the so-called "classic hallucinogens," and the supposed common thread of "causing hallucinations" so untenable, that they should be considered separately.)
The third sentence of the paragraph also needs to be revised. As Cheryl Pellerin discovered in researching her 1998 book, "Trips: How Hallucinogens Work in Your Brain," leading neuroscientists don't (didn't then) really know how they produce their more interesting effects, except that it has something to do with modulation of certain neurotransmitters. Thus, the air of authority with which the sentence declares that "psychedelics reduce the filters in the brain causing sensory overload which is often manifested in visual and audial distortion" produces an empty sensation of explanation. This old "reducing valve" theory, adapted to hallucinogens (if memory serves) by Aldous Huxley from Henri Bergson's more general theory of mind, is literary speculation, and hardly the authoritative scientific explanation it pretends to be here. "Distortion" is also an unfortunate choice of words, since it would seem to preclude the intensification of apperception that can sometimes occur.
Please, people, reconsider splitting this article so that a really useful treatment of drugs like DMT, LSD, psilocybin, etc. can be undertaken. Such a treatment needs to include critical examination (i.e., history) of the tendency to group these substances together and to want to make of them a natural category. There is a lot of good material here, but also some serious problems.
--Mdmeyer 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't take too good a read over this article, as you would plainly see that this is a summary article with links to three separate sub-articles (one for Psychedelics, one for Dissociatives and one for Deliriants).  The "reducing valve" theory is still one of the best primary descriptions of the psychedelic experience.  No amount of science about the specifics of which neurotransmitters are effected and speculation about how that may have an effect on consciousness is going to do much good as even to date, modern brain chemistry cannot explain consciousness itself.  Subjective descriptions are still exceedingly valuable in documenting that which chemistry cannot properly explain.  Of course we can document the details of what science has most recently found within the psychedelic drug article, and some of that has already been done.  The most up to date studies on psychedelics have basically helped identify the regions of the brain that regulate habituation and a sense of novelty.  --Thoric 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: They have been grouped as such by large government bodies, and by the legal system.  This article actually seeks to set the record straight, and if that is not quite clear, then maybe this article needs some adjustment and clarity.  The only thing that deliriants (datura) have in common with psychedelics (LSD) is that both can cause a strong altered perception of reality, and hence have inherent associated risks.  In that respect they do have more in common with each other than say with cocaine or heroin.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, please re-read the first few paragraphs of the article.  This article seeks to divide those which are currently labeled as "hallucinogens" into three distinct groups -- psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and the third paragraph should be altered to emphasize this properly... although it should be noted that some people have certainly experienced hallucinations from psychedelics at high dosages.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again I don't think you even read the article.  The first three paragraphs explain how "hallucinogen" isn't a very good term to group these substances, yet this is still the legal classification.  The third paragraph specifically states (or was supposed to state) that very few of these substances cause actual hallucinations, and briefly summarizes the differences between the three categories.  I, as well as many others believe the summaries  of each subcategory presented here to be among the most accurate to date, and that they can be stated with some authority as they reflect a summary of decades of research by numerous researchers.  I don't see how you feel that these are simply "notions" any more than the entire body of psychology is.  In fact the realm of the effects of psychoactives on consciousness belongs far more to psychology than to neurochemistry.  Far too much is lost to reduce the wonder of the human brain simply to a few glands excreting chemicals.  It is entirely for this reason that neurochemistry has accomplished very little in this area.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  third paragraph horrors 

message: why not move this page to the title, "Hallucinogens?" That title carries the same meaning, but is significantly more succinct.  The article for New York City, for example, is not named, "Manhattan, Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, and Staten Island." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Use the force (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original title was Hallucinogens.  It was renamed to a more specific title due to the fact that "hallucinogens" is not an apt description of all of these substances, and perhaps not even an apt description for some of them.  Essentially the title "hallucinogens" is legal POV.  Most experts in the field would not consider MDMA or cannabis to have a primary effect of causing halluncinations.  --Thoric 06:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  move title 

message: Before responding to this discussion, see the newer NPOV dispute section further below.
I am sorry for coming late to the discussion, but I must say that it seems an error to remain stuck with "hallucinogen" as a working term. It IS pejorative, it is misleading, and worst of all, it feeds into drug war propaganda. It is as if we were trying to write a balanced article on same-sex love and decided that we had to use the terms "sodomy" and "sodomite."
--Haiduc 22:57, 20 June 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but the problems with entheogen and psychedelic are just as bad, if not worse. "Hallucinogenic drug" is the term most commonly used in the closest thing there is to neutral publications on the subject, i.e. the scientific literature. This is usually even the case in scientific articles with apparently approving tones. What would you propose as an alternative? Rkundalini 11:38, 21 June 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say that those two options are just as bad?--Haiduc 02:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: There is a bit of discussion in each of those entries as to why the terms have been criticized. Basically, "entheogen" has not-necessarily-appropriate associations with god and religion, while "psychedelic", although originally fine, acquired a lot of irrelevant baggage and misuse in the 60s. Personally I advocate reclaiming the use of the word psychedelic so I guess I would agree with you if you wanted to replace "hallucinogenic drug" with this term, but others may disagree due to the inappropriate meanings it has acquired. Also, what about scopolamine-like things, dissociatives, Salvia divinorum, and other hallucinogens that are arguably not psychedelics in the classic sense of the word? Rkundalini 15:16, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, your take on "entheogen." As an atheist, do drugs jkids!!! I should have picked up on that a long time ago. Frankly I do like "psychedelic," I like the etymology and I like the historical connotations. I also think that "psychoactive" and "psychotropic" are valid choices and can stand in as synonyms. "Hallucinogen" on the other hand is both a misnomer and misleading, diverting the attention away from what is really a halluccination. As for the substances you have mentioned, I do not know enough about them to pass judgement, and I would encourage retaining the term for those substances whose effects do fall within that category. The true psychedelics do not, or, if they do, so do alcohol, cocaine and opium.--Haiduc 02:24, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hallucinogens, psychedelics, and entheogens are not synonymous. I believe that there should be different articles on all three, which there are, and when overlap occurs, the information should be placed under hallucinogen. Both of the other articles link to Hallucinogen so that should not be a major problem. On the whole I do not have many qualms with this article, but I would propose that "dissociative hallucinogens" should not be refered to as such. An encounter of this category in most literature that I have read would indicate that it would be better known as "dissociative anaesthetics". The drugs in this category, (Nitrous Oxide, Ketamine, PCP, and DXM, + more) may be known by some for their hallucinogen-like status, and should not be removed, but they should be recategorized and a note should be put that their hallucinogenic properties are questionable. They are as related to hallucinogens as alcohol or cocaine, and since those are not mentioned (even though there might be reason for them to be mentioned in a similar context), there is no reason to categorize the disassociative analgesics as hallucinogens. Heroin has created plenty of hallucinations, but is not categorized as a hallucinogenic drug because it better fits another category. The same goes for these 'dissociatives'. One idea would be to list all the drugs that fit under the more technical categorization of hallucinogenic drug first, and then on a seperate list, place all drugs that have the quality of being hallucinogenic. Please post your thoughts. Thank You. Flying Hamster 21:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: As an addendum to my previous post, I will post this link. ATCCS. This is the official categorization system of the WikiProject on Drugs, as can be seen here. This is the standard that is being used (although unfortunately not strictly followed) for the organization of drugs on Wikipedia. There is no particular category of drug in this system that refers to hallucinogenic drugs. They are instead organized much more specifically. I would suggest that an emphasis be placed on the hallucination as being a quality of a drug, not its category. Flying Hamster 22:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Drugs/Categorization --Rkundalini 06:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute (old) 

message: I don't agree with the categorisation of certain articles.  
For instance:
*  Golden Virginia
*  Rollie
Those are just article stubs I created, but I disagree with the idea of tobacco being listed as a psychedelic!  I wish my tobacco was psychedelic - though it is just plain not. It's misleading at best. I suggest that these categorisations for certain articles be removed or a new category created.  Celardore 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is tobacco/nicotine categorized as a psychedelic?  Entheogen, yes due to aboriginal spiritual use, psychoactive, yes due to its stimulant effects, but psychedelic, no.  --Thoric 22:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Sorting 

message: I believe that this article is approaching the status of a "good" article.  Unfortunately it is sorely lacking in citing sources (most of which is text that I wrote, so I guess I have to do some attributing).  I think that with some references and minor cleanup, we can request the article be peer reviewed for qualifying as a "good" article (at least).  --Thoric 15:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. One problem i've seen alot (i corrected most on this page but if i didnt catch it please fix it) is that people are using Psychoactive drug and Psychedelic drug incorrectly. Psychoactive drugs are a very general category, whereas Psychedelics refer more to non-addictive drugs and hallucinogens such as LSD or Psilocin. --Neur0X 20:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your "correction" was in err.  Please re-read the original paragraph you "corrected".  It was not using the terms incorrectly.  This article is not specifically limited to psychedelic drugs, but also includes dissociatives and deliriants -- a grouping also referred to legally as hallucinogens.  The leading paragraph was describing that these drugs differ from other non-hallucinogenic psychoactive drugs.  --Thoric 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article approaching "good" status 

message: It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#How to request a page move did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for time! -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previous Move Request 

message: The third paragraph needs serious editing.
It is helpful that the paragraph recognizes that "hallucinations of various kinds are only one of many effects produced" by the (overbroad) array of substances referred to by this article.
However, there are basic errors. For example: it has long been recognized, by virtually every student who has studied the topic, that pharmacology has a relatively small role in the content of 'hallucinogenic experience.' Thus, the statement that "The nature of the hallucinations produced is dependent on the specific compound" is misleading. While certain kinds of visual effects, such as "tracers" or afterimages are quite common, these do not qualify as "hallucinations."
This brings up another problem. Following the link to "hallucination," one quickly learns the basic distiction between "hallucinations" and "illusions" in the literature. And in fact, "hallucinations" in the sense given in the link ("a sensory perception experienced in the absence of an external stimulus") are extremely rare with the vast majority of the drugs covered by this article. The paragraph therefore introduces a major confusion in a prominent spot in the article. 
(As others have suggested, probably "deliriants" and "dissociatives" should have their own articles, as their modes of action and effects are so different from the so-called "classic hallucinogens," and the supposed common thread of "causing hallucinations" so untenable, that they should be considered separately.)
The third sentence of the paragraph also needs to be revised. As Cheryl Pellerin discovered in researching her 1998 book, "Trips: How Hallucinogens Work in Your Brain," leading neuroscientists don't (didn't then) really know how they produce their more interesting effects, except that it has something to do with modulation of certain neurotransmitters. Thus, the air of authority with which the sentence declares that "psychedelics reduce the filters in the brain causing sensory overload which is often manifested in visual and audial distortion" produces an empty sensation of explanation. This old "reducing valve" theory, adapted to hallucinogens (if memory serves) by Aldous Huxley from Henri Bergson's more general theory of mind, is literary speculation, and hardly the authoritative scientific explanation it pretends to be here. "Distortion" is also an unfortunate choice of words, since it would seem to preclude the intensification of apperception that can sometimes occur.
Please, people, reconsider splitting this article so that a really useful treatment of drugs like DMT, LSD, psilocybin, etc. can be undertaken. Such a treatment needs to include critical examination (i.e., history) of the tendency to group these substances together and to want to make of them a natural category. There is a lot of good material here, but also some serious problems.
--Mdmeyer 04:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didn't take too good a read over this article, as you would plainly see that this is a summary article with links to three separate sub-articles (one for Psychedelics, one for Dissociatives and one for Deliriants).  The "reducing valve" theory is still one of the best primary descriptions of the psychedelic experience.  No amount of science about the specifics of which neurotransmitters are effected and speculation about how that may have an effect on consciousness is going to do much good as even to date, modern brain chemistry cannot explain consciousness itself.  Subjective descriptions are still exceedingly valuable in documenting that which chemistry cannot properly explain.  Of course we can document the details of what science has most recently found within the psychedelic drug article, and some of that has already been done.  The most up to date studies on psychedelics have basically helped identify the regions of the brain that regulate habituation and a sense of novelty.  --Thoric 16:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: They have been grouped as such by large government bodies, and by the legal system.  This article actually seeks to set the record straight, and if that is not quite clear, then maybe this article needs some adjustment and clarity.  The only thing that deliriants (datura) have in common with psychedelics (LSD) is that both can cause a strong altered perception of reality, and hence have inherent associated risks.  In that respect they do have more in common with each other than say with cocaine or heroin.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, please re-read the first few paragraphs of the article.  This article seeks to divide those which are currently labeled as "hallucinogens" into three distinct groups -- psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed, and the third paragraph should be altered to emphasize this properly... although it should be noted that some people have certainly experienced hallucinations from psychedelics at high dosages.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again I don't think you even read the article.  The first three paragraphs explain how "hallucinogen" isn't a very good term to group these substances, yet this is still the legal classification.  The third paragraph specifically states (or was supposed to state) that very few of these substances cause actual hallucinations, and briefly summarizes the differences between the three categories.  I, as well as many others believe the summaries  of each subcategory presented here to be among the most accurate to date, and that they can be stated with some authority as they reflect a summary of decades of research by numerous researchers.  I don't see how you feel that these are simply "notions" any more than the entire body of psychology is.  In fact the realm of the effects of psychoactives on consciousness belongs far more to psychology than to neurochemistry.  Far too much is lost to reduce the wonder of the human brain simply to a few glands excreting chemicals.  It is entirely for this reason that neurochemistry has accomplished very little in this area.  --Thoric 20:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  third paragraph horrors 

message: It seems that this page has suffered from the sort of the rambling style that is inevitable with lots of small edits, even though most of the information in it is correct. I rewrote some of the sections that I thought were most obviously devoid of a guiding framework in the hope of adding a bit more structure to them. I think this is necessary if we are to produce something that is a truly accessible introduction to somebody who is entirely uninformed about the subject, and not just a warehouse of random facts. Feel free to mess with it, though. Sjeng 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I did some rewriting.  

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've been looking for some sort of scientific explanation on how/why hallucinogens cause hallucinations.  I'd understand if the effects of these substances are not fully understood, but the article doesn't even say that.  Did I miss something in the article? Eridani 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should probably have a look at the big David Nichols review paper referenced at the end of the article. You are right to observe that these substances are not fully understood, but a lot of what is understood about them on a more technical, psychopharmacological level is summarized in that paper.Sjeng 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific explanation?

message: I have found two interesting articles about the nomenclature of these drugs: Neurophile: Question of terminology, Blinkbits: hallucinogens. Perhaps it would be appropriate to use the term psychodysleptics? --Eleassar my talk 11:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use it for what? Note that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a forum for reaching consensus on a one true Wikipedian language, but an encyclopedia documenting facts and views about facts existing out there in the real world. If we think that psychodysleptic is a good word to describe something that is not usually so described, we may add a note to the effect that psychodysleptic might be a better term, and why, but I think that's the most you can do. Sjeng 16:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed the article due to a lack of inline citations. There are some found throughout the article, but a lot more need to be added due to the amount of information and the length of the article. Go through the article and for every statement you think that may be questioned about its verifiablity, then add an inline citation after it. Once you have addressed this and looked over the other criteria, consider renominating. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate review at Wikipedia:Good article review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 07:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of this is due to this article being a bit of an overview, referring to other articles that are supposed to have better citations. In practice, though, the other articles don't have great citations either, and the criticism is probably appropriate ;-) Sjeng 16:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failed

message: I have moved a lot of older discussion into the archives. I have, reluctantly, left in most of the discussion about the use of the word "hallucinogen", because it still seems to be ongoing.Sjeng 16:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: Quoting from the article:
:Of all the terms created, "hallucinogen", meaning roughly "generating delusions and false notions"
Given that there exists some difference of opinion on whether all so-called "hallucinogens" generate delusions or genuine "entheogenic" experiences, some more neutral term ought to be used, with the hallucinogen label placed into proper context rather than used directly. Whig 05:29, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately no such term exists at this time besides hallucinogen.  The word psychedelic does not apply to deliriants, and although some may claim that some of the dissociatives should be considered psychedelics, that would leave us without a term to describe the substances currently categorized as psychedelics (I supposed we could have pure psychedelics and dissociative psychedelics, but that just adds more complication).  Entheogen can refer to almost any drug as long as it has a traditional spiritual use (including possibly wine and tobacco).  What we need is a completely different scientific term... but what?  Technically psychedelic meaning "mind-manifesting" would be an appropriate term, but I already explained one problem with that (the other problem being its strong ties to art, music and 60's counterculture).  Ideally we need a linguist to propose a new term that means "consciousness altering".  Anyone good with Latin or Greek? ;)  Actually, after a bit of thought... if an antipsychotic is a drug used to treat psychotic episodes (btw, antipsychotic drugs tend to work as an antidote to some psychedelics), maybe the term we are looking for is psychotic (drug).  I've found references to the term psychotogen and psychotogenic used to describe the effects of PCP and Ketamine... but again, we need the term to literally mean a substance which alters consciousness to a degree such that one is able to view reality from a different point of view.  In the meantime we're stuck with hallucinogen as it is the term accepted by both psychiatry (i.e. the American psychiatric diagnostic manual) and legal scheduling (Controlled Substances Act). --Thoric 20:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To claim that we're stuck with "hallucinogen" because it is in use by certain scientists and by certain legal texts is akin to claiming that, in talking about same-sex love, we are stuck with "sodomy." The suggestion that we follow the "psycho-" (as in "psychotomimetic," already tried early on) root is worse. "Psychedelic" is perfectly usable, and if there is some confusion attached to it, well, there is a lot more confusion attached to "hallucinogen." Are we going to project western constructs here on all the native peoples who use these substances to access other mind states and claim that they are "hallucinating." That itself would be some kind of hallucination. Which is precisely the problem with using this unfortunate and misleading term. If we are to err, I suggest we err on the side of accuracy and neutrality, and from an etymological point of view, "mind manifesting" is a lot more precise, descriptive and non-judgemental than "delusional." Haiduc 23:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not stuck with "hallucinogenic", we just need an alternative, and psychedelic already has too much meaning attached to it, and as I mentioned, drugs like Ketamine and PCP or deliriants like datura and deadly nightshade are not considered to be "psychedelic".  I'm on yuor side... I agree we need a better term... I just don't agree that psychedelic is an adequate blanket term for everything that is currently considered a hallucinogen.  How about 'psychotropic? --Thoric 19:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I used to not mind "psychotropic," but I have come to believe that it is too general. After all, is not alcohol a psychotropic too, and coffee, and sedatives? The LSD aticle has an interesting solution, it does not just use one term, but combines "hallucinogen" and "psychedelic" as they both describe an aspect of the drug. So, how about "Hallucinogens and Psychedelics"? We should not try to shove all these drugs under a single label, and, short of inventing a new term (which we are not empowered to do here) I cannot escape the conclusion the "psychedelic" is the best of a compromised or inaccurate bunch. The problem here is that we are fighting cultural confusion but our weapons must also come from that sphere of confusion. Haiduc 04:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we might as well make the title, "Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants", as we need to differentiate between the dissociative drugs (PCP, DXM, Ketamine, nitrous oxide, amanita muscaria, salvia D.) the psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, etc) and the deliriants (atropine and scopolamine alkaloid containing plants, antihistamines, etc). --Thoric 17:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Sounds fine to me. We would have to have an intro that ties them all together and then distinguishes the three categories from each other, and then have three mini-articles on each of the sub-topics. Would you mind roughing it out, as I do not have much familiarity with the second or the third categories? Haiduc 02:26, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to add my strong support to this proposal, and propose moving the current article as suggested. Whig 03:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you consider cannabis a psychedelic?  What about MDMA?  What we need is word to refer to the same (or similar) substances that entheogen refers to ;)  Ah well... here goes... --Thoric 21:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Was not MDMA placed with "empathogens?" As for cannabis, not really. I think we should use the restricted meaning of the term, else we'll be including wine and tobacco pretty soon. Haiduc 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Empathogens are a subsection under psychedelics, so maybe they apply to some degree, but not in the traditional sense.  The same sort of goes for THC, as at high doses it can apparently cause psychedelic effects, and it certainly has a synergistic effect with the classic psychedelics, and almost has a stronger social connection to the "psychedelic era" than LSD. --Thoric 14:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute 

message: It is stated that "there are no known "true" (NMDA antagonists) plant dissociatives", yet the wikipedia article on NMDA Receptor Antagonists sites ibogaine as one of them. See refrence nubers 29 and 30, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMDA_receptor_antagonist 69.156.37.253 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hallucinogenic Organisms 

message: The notion that LSD can be added to drinks is highly questionable.  If you look at the LSD article where it describes its chemical properties, it states, "Furthermore, chlorine destroys LSD molecules on contact; even though chlorinated tap water typically contains only a slight amount of chlorine, because a typical LSD solution only contains an infinitesimal amount of LSD, dissolving LSD in tap water is likely to completely eliminate the substance.[8]"  So I think it should be maintained that the situation described in this article is highly variable.
:The feasibility of "slipping LSD into a drink" has little to do with that being used as a scare tactic.  The vast majority of what the government says or has said about various illegal drugs has been based on nonsense.  That said, not all drinks contain significant quantities of tap water, and there have been plenty of instances whereby drinks, and entire bowls of punch have been dosed with LSD.  --Thoric 16:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shulgin writes, in TIHKAL book II section 26: "Oh yes, and often overlooked, there may be only an infinitesimal amount of chlorine in treated tap water, but then there is only an infinitesimal amount of LSD in a typical LSD solution. And since chlorine will destroy LSD on contact, the dissolving of LSD in tap water is not appropriate." I think what he is trying to say here is not that tap water destroys LSD on contact, but that pure (gaseous) chlorine destroys LSD on contact, and thus tap water is a bad storage medium for LSD at least in the long run if it contains even a little chlorine. A misreading of Shulgin's statement, or similar statements by others, is probably what gave rise to the idea that dissolving LSD in drinks for a short time before consumption would be a big deal. Also, there is indeed next to no chlorine in most commercially available soft drinks and juices, so presumably orange juice would not kill the LSD dissolved in it as fast as tap water would. (Note that chloride is not a problem!) Stories involving LSD dissolved in liquids that have been much repeated in print include the use by the merry pranksters of orange juice, kool-aid, venison stew and suchlike, but I cannot right now recall any authors that I'd think of as outright credible who have said much explicitly about this...Sjeng 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding LSD to drinks (last paragraph of Legal Status) 

message: Under "Deliriants" it says that this class of drugs are "a special class of dissociative which are antagonists for the acetylcholine receptors (unlike muscarine and nicotine which are agonists of these receptors)".
Then it says that "Native Americans also consumed massive amounts of tobacco during religious ceremonies in order to experience the deliriant effects."
This is self-counterdicting. Please explain or edit. Thanks. 
79.178.170.174 (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This definitely needs explaining and clarification.  While tobacco plays a large role in the shamanic ceremonies of many indigenous groups, it is not clear if tobacco by itself can be responsible for the effects attributed to it.  It is known to be used together along with other plants (including others of the nightshade family, as well as in ayahuasca brews).  Its inclusion could be to try to balance out some of the negative anticholinergic side effects.  I have also heard that the "tobacco" smoked by Native Americans in their ceremonies is a completely different plant than the tobacco normally used for smoking, but I don't have any supporting documentation for this.  High doses of nicotine can apparently cause hallucinations, but there are exceedingly few documented reports of these experiences.  --Thoric (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tobacco used as a deliriant?

message: why on earth is this article not moved to "Hallucinogens" for goodness sake!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraMagnus (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the term "hallucinogen" includes three categories of different drugs with different effects. This article clarifies that fact, without labeling them all with a broad, nonspecific term like "hallucinogen".--Metalhead94 (talk) 10:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  title.... 

message: Under the "Psychedelics" section, it says that herbal sources include psilocybin mushrooms. Shrooms are not herbs, they would be a fungal source, not an herbal source.--Metalhead94 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Herbal sources 

message: "As a result of the growing popularity of LSD and disdain for the hippies with whom it was heavily associated, LSD was banned in the United States in 1967.[7] This greatly reduced the clinical research about LSD, although limited experiments continued to take place, such as by Reese Jones in San Francisco.[8]"
These two sentences strike me as a very uncritical. First it appears that LSD was banned because of its role in the countercultural revolution; indeed the citation provided affirms this point of view, but it is hardly a neutral one.
The second statement is patently absurd: just as the theories about the schizophrenogenic effect of LSD proved false, so did the hopes for its therapeutic effects. Research petered out for lack of results, not because LSD was banned. 
On the other hand, and this may be something worth adding, Cannabinoids are approved for pharmacological use in many countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sativex), despite cannabis being in these very same countries illegal for recreational use. Which disproves the general argument (in my view somewhat implicit in the passage above) that medicinal use of hallucinogens is not ongoing because of their legal status.
62.32.213.96 (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On banning and on the medicinal status of H 

message: This whole chapter was deleted on 4th of November 2008 by ip 208.47.43.58 without any comments about it. I think returning this chapter should be discussed. --Ahabvihrea (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status and attitudes 

message: I have taken hydroxyzine and it NEVER made me do anything deliriant-like. It should not be included! YVNP (talk) 23:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably just a question of dosage, a lot of deliriants are routinely administered, but in doses 5-10 times smaller than would be required to make you delirious--UltraMagnus (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  hydroxyzine is a deliriant? 

message: is the very fact that hallucinogens cause hallucinations cause for them to be detrimental to health or is it just a coincidence that there are no known hallucinogens without negative health effects? Or there are such hallucinogens and which are those? I think these are things the article shall address from the beginning and with data to back it up...Undead Herle King (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: stub snorting, I mean, hallucinogens and health

message: I tried to do this myself, but it seems I can't do it without an admin.
This page needs to be renamed Hallucinogen.  Here are the reasons why.
The word hallucinogen is a valid entry in both Dictionary and Encyclopedia entries.  It is mentioned as a subject in many valid sources of information, including the following:
Encyclopedia Britanica: 
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/252931/hallucinogen
The Mayo Clinic:  
http://www.mayo.edu/msgme/psychiatry-addict-rch.html
The DEA: 
http://www.justice.gov/dea/concern/hallucinogens.html
The National Institute of Health:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2564966/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2750957/
The World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/ICD10ResearchDiagnosis.pdf
There's a few arguments against using the word from what I see above.  But I don't think they merit under close scrutiny.  Here's why.
Umbrella terms are still valid terms.  If Psychedelics, Disassociatives, and Deleriants are sub-sets of this category, and have their own articles, why does this article name all three?  Intellectual Property, for instance, is a combination of Patents, Trademarks, Copyright, and other rights, yet the term is valid and Wikipedia does not rename that article.  It does not fit the standard encyclopedia definition.  The only other thing I get from reading this is the theory that somehow, the word "hallucinogen" has a negative connotation, but by that standard Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV and not get involved in such battles.   
I strongly urge this article be renamed to the appropriate term, Hallucinogen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnRTroy (talk • contribs) 23:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article should be named Hallucinogen 

message: I did a little rewriting because the article on taxonomy was claiming that the term "psychotomimetic" was obsolete, which is simply false.  Articles published this year, in 2010, still use the term psychotomimetic to describe PCP, ketamine, LSD, etc. AlkaloidMan (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy and nomenclature 

message: The third paragraph section on dissociatives really needs some references.  Specifically, we really need references for the following claims: DXM/DXO causing respiratory depression,  "some deaths (from PCP) have been reported due to the release of myoglobin from ruptured muscle cells;" and "none of the dissociatives have any physically addictive properties, though psychological addiction has been observed."  The last one should be easy to back up.  
BTW, ketamine is only capitalized at the beggining of a sentence.  I've noticed that some people capitalized the non-proprietary names of chemicals and drugs, which isn't proper grammar.AlkaloidMan (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissociatives 

message: I had not heard of psychedelics causing free radical related brain damage.  Can we get a citation on this?  --Thoric 00:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything which increases metabolism (including, but certainly not limited to stimulant-type drugs) technically accelerates aging, and therefore increases the rate of DNA damage, among other age related illnesses.  Anything which causes stress (including exercise, sex, eating, stimulants, worrying, anxiety) increases metabolism.  Fortunately the human body counteracts this to some degree by trying to force some much needed relaxation and recuperation following the stressful event.  In the case of psychedelics, there is generally a strong and rapid (but temporary) tolerance curve that prevents the effectiveness of repeated dosages.  The problem with amphetamines (especially methamphetamine with its long duration) is that the body has little in its arsenal to counteract the effects, and the result is a great deal of stress on the body, and the ability to delay (or even circumvent) the natural recuperation process -- the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long.  --Thoric 14:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causing mental illness 

message: where does Hallucinogen come from  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.36.3 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  where does Hallucinogen come from 

message: I would like to point out that "psychedelic" and "hallucinogen" are often used interchangeably.  This article made it sound like "psychedelic" only referred to the LSD-like hallucinogens, but that's simply not the case. I can easily find you instances of the word "psychedelic" being applied to cannabinoids, PCP and ketamine.  "Hallucinogen" is not really a subcategory of "psychedelic."  The terms are considered equivalent.
I'm seeing a lot of straight up nonsense appear in this article. 
One person had written that there has been a lot of debate about the descriptions of these drugs, which doesn't say much.  There has also been a lot of literature that has attempted to describe psychedelic experiences (and in my opinion, many of the descriptions are excellent).  
Another wrote that these drugs are non-toxic.  Drugs wouldn't work unless they were toxic (the difference between a useful drug and deadly poison is the dose - also, open up The Plants of the Gods and the authors mention that these drugs are toxic).  
I see a lot of subtle hints that remind me that many want to consider dissociate psychedelics different (e.g. someone wrote that "even certain dissociatives" are psychedelic, as though referring to dissociatives as psychedelic is unusual, but it isn't).  "Psychedelic" has been used to describe PCP, by scientists and users alike, since at least the 1970s (users compare it to LSD in Siegel, 1978 and I've seen it's visual effects at higher doses compared to LSD a number of times).
PCP was used to "model psychosis" and then in experimental therapy just like other psychedelics (see the work of Brian M Davies done in the 1960s, for examples)
I know that people think if LSD as being the most psychedelic of psychdelics, but that doesn't make the "other" psychedelics unusual or "less" psychedelic.  Is a penguin any less of a bird?
Someone confused me by writing:
"have an extensive study profile aside from the mortality rates of the drugs"
I'm not really even sure what that's supposed to mean.  They've been studied and not just in cases where people have died due to or under the influence of the drug?
Siegel RK. In Petersen RC, Stillman RC (eds). Phencyclidine Abuse: An Appraisal.  National Institute on Drug Abuse: Rockville, Maryland, 1978.
:We've been through this discussion time and time again.  "Psychedelic" was originally coined to describe the effects of mescaline, and while for a time it became a blanket term for any substance that could result in remotely similar effects, as new classifications were established for the other substances, psychedelic remained the only term to describe mescaline-like substances (such as LSD, psilocybin, etc).  "Dissociative" much more accurately describes PCP, and THC (unless consumed in very high doses) does not reliably produce anything that could be considered a hallucination.  --Thoric (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same issue with the language of this article. The key to my understanding is that 'psychedelics' in general refer to LSD or a tryptamine alkaloids such as DMT or those occuring in p.cubensis or the mescaline family of alkaloids. Plants which contain these alkaloids are also correctly referred to as psychedellic. I've never understood 'psychedelic' to correctly refer to substituited phenethylamines, amphetamines, NBOMEs, or any number of other compounds which have 'hallucinogenic psychoactivity'. So a psychedelic may or can be hallucinogenic, but a hallucinogen is not by definition psychedelic in my understanding the terminology. I think we have to forgive scientists for not using perfect language when communicating their findings and not rely on citations where a study has called something like PCP a psychedelic instead of hallucinogenic or more accurately in the case of PCP, dissociative. The language most often used to describe these substances is mostly informal and there is a certain amount of flexibility in how it's used. Again, even in the opening of the article the criteria of L. E. Hollister would no less describe psychedelics.
In the second place, it would be better to focus on the nature of the hallucination, dissociation, and delerium in their respective articles than to trying to reverse engineer the definition of hallucinogen from the effects of a drug. This is what has got us into so much trouble on the serotonin syndrome page, all the definitions got so loose and super inclusive that side effects of any drug that might cause serotonin syndrome are listed as potential symptoms of serotonin syndrome. This is wholly inaccurate editing.
I've just partially rewritten the opening paragraph. 
" Unlike other psychoactive drugs, such as stimulants and opioids, these drugs do not merely amplify familiar states of mind, but rather induce experiences that are qualitatively different from those of ordinary consciousness. These experiences are often compared to non-ordinary forms of consciousness such as trance, meditation, dreams, or insanity."
If one is in pain and takes an opioid, being without pain is not native to one's experience (i.e. not your ordinary consciousness) though this is not considered a hallucinogen because a 'hallucination' is actually referring to either the visual aspect of an experience, or how immersing the experience is (how different from before). Of course opioids fit the second definition and not the first. However, amphetamine psychosis is a perfectly valid source of hallucinations, though this is not the primary or intended effect of amphetamines, merely a function of their abuse.
RotogenRay (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is all over the place 

message: Can we remove or revise the Research Chemicals section of this page? I believe that a section about research chemicals is seemingly obligatory for a page about hallucinogens, but the entire section has not a single citation. I'd love to know how the original text was posted without any sources. Perhaps someone could track down the original contributor, or maybe just add some citations? I scoured the web for any related text but all of it appears to be the original contributor's own creation. Because of this, the section appears to be original research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia. Can we make the section invisible for viewers, but let contributors know it's there until we can actually find some sources? It is against the nature of Wikipedia to spread unjustifiable or possibly untrue information.
Sincerely,
Tom  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdf.tomfischer (talk • contribs) 01:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Chemicals Section (Remove/Revise?) 

message: From the revision current as of this writing:
"No connection has been made between psychedelic drugs and brain damage; however, high doses over time of some dissociatives and deliriants have been shown to cause Olney's lesions in animals, and have been suspected to occur in humans."
I seem to recall reading somewhere that chronic MDMA abuse produces lesions (perhaps only confirmed in animals).
A google search ({http://www.google.ca/search?q=mdma+lesion&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official}) turns up reports of lesions in animals.--69.196.212.30 14:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain damage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hallucinogen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514083622/http://library.thinkquest.org/C0115926/drugs/deliriants5.htm to http://library.thinkquest.org/C0115926/drugs/deliriants5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070127174840/http://server03.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/archives/CJP/2005/june/cjp-june-05-dyck-IR.pdf to http://server03.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/archives/CJP/2005/june/cjp-june-05-dyck-IR.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329001450/http://evidence.no/en to http://www.evidence.no/en
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Concerning lycanthropy and the use of hallucinogenic drugs, Frida G. Surawicz and Richard Banta wrote "In the first case, this was brought on by LSD and strychnine and continued casual marijuana use... Concerning drugs as causative agents, it is interesting to note that opium has been mentioned in a dual capacity, namely as a drug which can cause lycanthropy as well as a drug for its treatment." -- I don't believe that this really belongs here, as this is certainly not a typical nor a traditional hallucinogen experience. --Thoric (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, deliriant drugs like Brugmansia, Datura, Hyoscyamus, Mandragora, and Belladonna can make persons believe they are animals. I've read that if you tell them they are pigs they start to behave like pigs. They loose their will and the contact to reality, and their memory. They do not know what they are doing whatever they do. The alkaloids of these plants, as well as further anticholinergics suppress the ability to distiguish dream and reality. It is strongly recommended not to use such stuffs for recreational purposes because nobody knows what will happen. --FK1954 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lycanthropy 

message: Voice 46.32.124.69 (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: This page has had a serious problem with unsourced content at least since 2013, according to the templates placed at the top of the article. I have done a little cleanup and added a few sources, but since I don't have the time for finding the huge number of sources needed to bring the whole article in line with WP:MEDRS, I think we have reached the point that unsourced content should be deleted. This is an encyclopedia and its standards need to be upheld (especially since, despite all warnings, many people rely on Wikipedia to make decisions that can impact their health). While a longer article would be nice, it is better to have a shorter one that is actually reliable. Unless there are objections, I am going remove a large amount of content within the next few weeks. For the moment, I'm thinking of unsourced content, though eventually lower-quality sources will also need to be removed. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections so I'm going ahead. Thanks, Gazelle55 (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing unsourced material