Talk:Datura/Archive 1

Old entries
Some of the info in this article looks doubtful to me: TeunSpaans 05:50, 27 August 2004 (UTC)
 * All members of the family did the original anonymous author mean All members of the genus, or did he/she did mean family? If the latter, the text should be moved to the family.
 * Good question. In the context, I'm guessing he meant genus and going to fix it that way, but Solanaceae as a family are full of toxins aren't they? Even our good buddies the tomato and potato? Gzuckier 20:03, 11 November 2004 (UTC)
 * Datura was supposedly used in witchcraft - how sure is this? are there any sources? This tidbit of information by now has spread to the german and dutch wikis, but are there any sources?

Don't ask me to fetch them for you, but yes, its well established. The formulae called for mixing boiled liquid with several other plants, and applying it to the skin.

Alternately, and, maybe something we don't need to bother mentioning, the myth of Witches "flying" on brooms actually comes from using brooms to apply Datura and other substances intravaginally. (and Anally.) Prometheuspan 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Back in the 60s, when grammie and grampie were wasting their youth in search of more substances to abuse, use of Datura was definitely 'borrowed' from shamanistic practices of the Native Americans (or Injuns, as they were known back then) as referenced in many books on suchlike topics. See also Carlos Castaneda, IIRC. Still many pages all over the Net detailing the use of Datura in 'Magick' rites. Kids! Don't try this at home! The stuff can be pretty damn fatal, ain't like smoking weed! Gzuckier 19:56, 11 November 2004 (UTC)

Check Whiskey Rebellion reference
The article refers to British soldiers being sent to stop the Whiskey Rebellion, but that rebellion happened in 1794, after the US was independant from Britain. Wrong nationality? Wrong rebellion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethg (talk • contribs) 19:21, 11 November 2004 (UTC)

Photograph
I recently uploaded a bunch of photographs, among which one of a Datura, but I don't know which datura it is. I'd like to put it in the right location, so if anyone can identify it...? See User:DirkvdM/Photographs. DirkvdM 09:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Severed tongue/penis
Unless this allegation can be sourced it seems to be an urban legend and should be removed. Pacian 01:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Although im sure this carries no weight, i remember the severed penis story from when it first happened, opened my eyes to how scary this stuff is

Prometheuspan 01:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC) I think as a warning it is only half way there, and I'd rather see it deleted myself, its too off topic.

What we need is to point out that its potentially lethal if ingested, and that the effect is total suspension of reality for 3-12 days. Users should be in a safe place, and babysitters are an absolute necessity.

3-12 days?? Sorry, but I can tell you don't know that much about datura use. At the MOST the trip will last 2-3 days (with an dangerously high dose). A more common dose would generally give effects that would fade in 6-12 hours. Anecdotal of course, but these are facts I've learned over the years.--68.217.162.212 (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No sharp object should be accessible, no poisions should be accessible, dah dah dah...obvious stuff.


 * I don't think this page should become an extension of Erowid, so we don't need to be handing out safety tips. It should be facts about the plant, its' history, and the established pharmacology of its active ingredients and nothing more.

Kst447 (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Lethality
somebody should mention somewhere in this article that ingesting any physical part of the actual plant can be lethal.

There are kids dying all the time from reading articles like this one which didn't mention this important problem.

Generally speaking, the only safe way to ingest Datura is as a Tea, and Witches made a lotion of it and put the lotion on their skin. Prometheuspan 00:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I was only looking this up after I was told a person who attended school in the grade below me died after taking datura. His story is here, if you care:

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2003/s944974.htm

Shamanic Protocols
Also, I think that we should actually find and post the Shamanic protocols, or kill the article, because in this case, the Shamanic Protocols do mean the difference between life and death, and the protocols are the means by which theoretical responsible use becomes a reality.

Removed

 * Graham Phillips in "The Moses Legacy: The Evidence of History" suggests that a Sinai species of Thorn Apple was "the bush that burns", the "Burning Bush" of Moses and was used as an enthogen by the ancient Hebrews.

As there is no firm botanical evidence for this claim (i.e., Datura did not occur in Sinai at that time) - MPF 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Self mutilation
I found this on the Wikipedia penis removal page:


 * On 2003, a German student known just as "Andreas W", from Halle cut off his own penis and tongue with a pair of garden shears while under the influence of the deleriant drug datura. Neither organ was re-attached successfully.

Should this be mentioned in the page? I guess it's not uncommon to self-mutilate oneself when hallucinating, but the point is specific to datura. Jumping cheese  Cont @  ct 09:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not actually as common as you may think. I know several people who have tried datura (practicaly everyone in 8th Grade, at the time, including myself). The delirium was confusing and blurry, but I have never heard of anyone doing something as insane as severing their genitals, nor any kind of self-mutilation. I can only speak of my own expierience, but never heard of anything like what you mentioned. And about the overdose thing, if you research datura before you run and grab the seeds, it is very easy to avoid an overdose. The problem with the overdoses are people that don't no what their doing. Not at all trying to advocate datura use, just wanted to clear a few things up.--68.217.162.212 (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ritual use
Datura is actually from sanskrit not hindi. It has been used in many religious rituals among some of the more esoteric hindu sects and still does in some. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the page?

In the eastern and north eastern part of India Datura or "Dhutra" as it is commonly known is a prime offering to Lord Siva on the night of Maha Sivaratri.

Effects of ingestion
The first paragraph of this section badly needs some inline references. It isn't necessarily inaccurate, just totally unsourced. (See the official-sounding explanation of the anecdotally reported blindness associated with ingestion. No offense intended, but where the hell did THAT come from?) Lou Sander (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Distribution
The first paragraph says the genus is probably native only to the Americas and that it was known in India millennia ago. Yeah? &mdash;Tamfang (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe the editor(s) who wrote the geographical distribution material have been drinkin' a little Datura tea. Seems like a rewrite, complete with sourcing, is needed. Lou Sander (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just came here to say the same. Apart from the vedic aspect, I also find it more than a little puzzling that the paragraph goes on to state "It also grows naturally throughout India and most of Australia", without any explanation of what the difference between native to and grows naturally throughout is supposed be. Utterly bizarre. I'm inclined to agree with the comment above! ;-) Anon 69.225.135.108 (talk) 08:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the section on the origin of the name you will also see a mention that the origin can only be traced back to sometime in the 1600's followed by an ancient Sanskrit pedigree. I think we are witness to two different perspectives fighting for control. One who claims it was an American plant imported to India, while another claims an ancient provenance in India. Note all the "citation needed" following claims of an ancient Indian provenance. I think someone is pressing unsubstantiated claims which are in conflict with the original text. Just a guess though. 68.32.172.192 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference on the origins and distribution. It excluded the Asian, etc. stuff, so I deleted that stuff and included the citation. Apparently the editors who put it in had confused Datura with the similar genus Brugmansia. Lou Sander (talk) 14:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references section
Per the tags, sections like this should be avoided, this one is basically unsourced, and may contain spam and poor or irrelevant examples. It seems to be a catchbasin for any mention of the word "datura" anywhere in the world of culture.

I propose to remove this section entirely. I'll wait a while for comments, then I'll delete it. Lou Sander (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been no comments on the above proposal for seven weeks. Citations were requested for all or nearly all entries in this section in early August, and none have been provided for nearly four months. I'm going to delete the entire section, plus the related tag(s) on the article. Lou Sander (talk) 15:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Description Section
Changed stalk description from "woody-stalked" to "herbaceous" (herbaceous-stalked does anyone think?) per Preissel. Reference for the paragraph stays the same (pp. 10, 11; first English edition).

Changed "closely allied Brugmansiae" to "closely allied Brugmansia" (spelling). Tom Hulse (talk) 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Common Names
Regarding Ringbang's [| recent edit], where most all of Datura's common names were moved to Datura stramonium, I believe we might have gone a little too far. I agree with, for instance, moving "Jimson weed" there, because it is particular to D. stramonium and not Datura in general, but perhaps not most of the others. "Thorn apple" for instance is used by the leading modern reference, Dr. Preissel, in to represent all Daturas (8 of the 9 Datura species have thorns on their fruit). "Devil's trumpet" is used typically as a counter point to, and on an equal level as Brugmansia's general name of "Angel's trumpet". The common saying, used help new people remember the difference, is that Angel trumpet's flowers hang down as angels look down from heaven, and Devil's trumpet flowers face up as the devil would look up from below. I would appreciate any references that isolate these names to specifically D. stramonium only. Thanks! Tom Hulse (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Effects of ingestion
NOTE: This section did not go into Archive 1 (for all pre-2014 material). Though it was started in 2010, it contains some comments from late in 2014. Lou Sander (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to solicit comments regarding a possible revert of a recent edit by User:Buntfalke, including the following line 67: "A number of usage and toxicity reports covering Datura and preperations of it can be found at Erowid." The main purpose of that site is instructional for illegal drug use, inclulding headings under Daturetea that read "Glowing Experiences", and subheadings under that such as "My Best Experience EVER!!!!!!". The real practical purpose of this sentence is to aid drug users in finding information to help them in illegal activity ("preperations"[sic]), and I believe it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Tom Hulse (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a simplistic claim about 'the main purpose of that site'. Its purpose is to inform, to fight ignorance. It and its collection of experience reports provides information not only for the public, but also for health professionals and researchers. There is no need to imply implications about Erowid simply because it doesn't distort its knowledge base by *specifically excluding positive trip reports* (!). It isn't appropriate to exclude a link to such an authoritative and informative site as Erowid. It is essentially the Wikipedia of substances — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane (talk • contribs) 09:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, please do not remove properly sourced material. If you want to put in your stuff about Erowid, go ahead and do it, but please do not do so at the expense of a peer-reviewed academic article. Please be more specific about how you "pointed out that the source is flawed, and why", as claimed in the edit summary. Lou Sander (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nitrobutane, I've reverted your recent edit to the stable version so we can discuss your disputed change here first. You have argued in the edit summaries that a website, Erowid.com, is superior to a respected hardcover book in the Pharmacology field that has been heavily cited by many other respected scientific works. That's not at all how Wikipedia does or should work. Please read WP:RS for details. --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have already pointed out how the source is flawed in that instance. It takes advantage of the authority of Erowid by saying '“Train Wreck” severely negative experience reports' ('Train Wrecks and Trip disasters' is a trip category on that site, and 'experience report' is also Erowid-speak). Immediately after: 'The overwhelming majority of those who describe the use of Datura (and to a lesser extent, Belladonna, Brugmansia and Brunfelsia) find their experiences extremely mentally and physically unpleasant and not infrequently physically dangerous.' This implies that Erowid supports such a conclusion - but it directly contradicts this. It's immediately obvious. The 'train wrecks' and the 'difficult experiences' sections together aren't any kind of 'overwhelming majority'. In this research field, Erowid is an important source, respected for its review articles, newsletter, its careful selection procedures for submissions, but most sought after for its broad and deep collection of trip reports. I don't see why Erowid should be dismissed as unreliable just because it's a website. The Internet allows for broad and rapid collection of evidence, and cooperation between a wide selection of contributors, all of it helping to reduce sources of bias. Being widely cited, or with a hard cover (!), doesn't mean the book's right about everything. It doesn't prevent casual POV, especially if it (the POV) agrees with received 'wisdom' of a lot of the population. Straight from the title (Pharmacology and Abuse of Cocaine, Amphetamines, Ecstasy and Related Designer Drugs), it implies that all use of these drugs is 'abuse' (even though the rest of the book is more sophisticated). I never used the word 'authoritative'. I said Erowid was highly detailed, more verifiable, and a better source (certainly in this instance). Its Datura page (that the book alludes to) - that is an actual evidence base that can be examined. An outrageously sweeping generalization like 'The overwhelming majority ... find their experiences extremely mentally and physically unpleasant and not infrequently physically dangerous' without a single number to back it up is an opinion I replaced instead of adding because of the strident, startling opinion that looks very much POV, and out-of-pace on Wikipedia. I suppose both the original quote and my piece could be side-by-side, even though one shows a contradiction in the other! Nitrobutane (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Nitrobutane. I'm sure it must seem frustrating to feel like you are sure of the truth, but a consensus (3:1) of editors won't let you put it in the article. The trouble is that every one of us could be a nutjob or an honest nice person that is just plain wrong. So it is reasonable, fair, and right that Wikipedia has strict standards on reliable sources. I see that you're new here, by the trouble you're having formatting your talk page posts (I straightened it out for you); could you please, please read the link at WP:MEDRS that two editors have requested you to specifically look at? Please then try to evaluate your website with a truly unbiased and detached perspective as a neutral person would, based on this policy. Your answer will then be acutely clear. I know you think Erowid is "reliable" by your personal standards, but it doesn't matter how you or I would personally interpret "reliable", only what the Wikipedia policy is. The policy is there for a good reason and it works well.
 * On Frey's alleged referencing of Erowid, no absolutely not is it obvious he is referring to them. Are you a young person? If we grew up in the internet age we tend to think that the top Google hit is the final authority, beginning and end of a matter. All of the recreational drug terminology you mentioned has been very, very common going back many decades; long, long before Erowid was even though of. It would be myopic tunnel vision to just assume he must be referencing them. If you were a little older, it would really seem silly to assume that. Regarding your idea that "the Internet allows for broad and rapid collection of evidence", no, not evidence, just unreliable data when it is self-reported by a group that has not been scientifically controlled in any manner. There are so many dozens of ways that kind of data is unreliable, it would take me a week to type it all. This is standard, basic 101 stuff that college freshman learn early-on in any field even related to science. --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Nitobutane, Erowid is a primary source and the information you are trying to add constitutes original research (please see No original research). The Wikipedia guidelines regarding medical content WP:MEDRS specificaly states: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials. It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Furthermore the information you are trying to add is controversial as several editors have reverted you. WP:MEDRS specificaly states as regards to controversial content: Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk", contradict, or counter the conclusions of reliable secondary sources...Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources favoring a minority opinion should not be aggregated or presented devoid of context in such a way as to undermine proportionate representation of expert opinion in a field as presented in secondary sources. To include the controversial content you need to source it with a reliable WP:MEDRS compliant secondary source or tertiary source. Ochiwar (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just because I don't remember every bit of wikiformatting, is no call to act patronising under the guise of helpfulness, to imply I'm 'new' and so on. Or to say it's 'acutely clear' I'd agree with you if I had 'a truly unbiased and detached perspective'. I am well aware of WP:MEDRS, and may I point out WP:IGNORE: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. To show that a source is misrepresenting its own sources for a stridently, sweepingly negative statement, is an important form of maintenance. ' “Train Wreck” severely negative experience reports', with original italics emphasis, capitalization and quotes around 'train wreck', is referring to a specific thing under that name, and not some slang term. And that name is the short version of Erowid's 'Train Wrecks and Trip Disasters' subsection which is present on the pages for specific substances, including Datura. My Erowid-derived part isn't vital biomedical information - it talks about its trip effects. The book quote adds nothing biomedical of substance, as the biological effects of Datura had already been discussed in detail and the quote adds nothing to it. WikiProject Medicine is only one of three the article belongs to. To repress info from Erowid.org in a WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants article simply because the article is also in Medicine, is completely unreasonable. 'The overwhelming majority of those who describe their use of Datura find their experiences extremely unpleasant both mentally and often physically dangerous.' - To allow such a statement on the basis of a single book, without even pointing out it's an exact quote, but simply presenting it as fact - in effect would be POV, rather than 'proportionate representation of expert opinion'. Especially in a Psychedelics article. To present the nuanced piece as 'controversial' and remove it, leaving only the one-sided indictment from a book called Pharmacology and Abuse of (...), is so unlikely as to go against WP:Reasonability: The Reasonability Rule: if an action cannot be considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person, that action should not be performed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.111.46 (talk) 12:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since two more editors had to again alter your formatting/add signature, perhaps you could review WP:TALK? Thanks! :)
 * Regarding WP:MEDRS, perhaps you misunderstood. I didn't use it to support Freye (that's a separate issue), I said you should use it to evaluate the website you are supporting, Erowid. So yes, it is absolutely true that an unbiased person could not support this use of Erowid if they were trying to follow WP:MEDRS, an established Wikipedia Guideline, not just a simple Wikiproject like Psychedelics. Per WP:MEDRS, Erowid may not be used as a source in this article for information about the effects of Datura ingestion.
 * Regarding the separate point of Freye's claim, if you want to invoke WP:IGNORE, then let's look first at what other reliable sources say:


 * That is really a fair sampling of what reliable sources say. So perhaps we could compromise and tone down Freye's description to something more like Turkington's above? --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Tom Hulse: What did I say about being patronising under the guise of being helpful? This time with a little smiley just to infuriate further

The point I make about WP:MEDRES is: it's being overextended here. That's why I invoke WP:IGNORE. I am citing Erowid to desribe Datura's mental (not physical effects), so WP:MEDRES has nothing to do ith t. And since Erowid has a broad database of trip reports on substances' mental effects, you might want to think about how ridiculous it would be to exclude it in a piece on the mental effects of Datura! As for Freye's claim, it's so overladen wih superlatives that any other of your quotes would be a toning down, including Turkington's. With the caveat of course, that he's looking at Datura in an implicitly judgemental way, as a 'chemical' used for 'illegal purposes' (even though it's a herb, and not even illegal). Look at the titles. Freye sees all the substances in the book as nothing but 'abuse'. The same goes for Brust. Miller's quote implies Datura's an 'addictive drug' (it isn't). Tilton approaches it specifically as a 'way to die'. A prejudiced researcher is liable to simply discover mainly the experiences of people who ended up in hospital, simply because there's official records that it happened - and make conlcusions based only on that. Last (or first), is the bias of the one who 'fairly sampled' these specific quotes and put them together. The one who said: '''The main purpose of that site is instructional for illegal drug use, inclulding headings under Daturetea that read "Glowing Experiences", and subheadings under that such as "My Best Experience EVER!!!!!!"' The one who judged Erowid because it didn't purposely exclude positive trip reports. Because it didn't mutilate its own evidence base and deceive its own users - all to keep to the line that 'drugs are bad'. Because it dared to show that Datura can be a glowing, or even a Best Ever experience. Your own bias may be the last thing you'd think of, but I hope it's still on the list!
 * Lou Sander: The very reason I included the extra material is to counter the bias of the superlative-loaded quote, by showing what information other, unprejudiced researchers can discover.

It is great to explain it with sublety, in greater detail. A spectrum of sources is far better than just one. I included all those quotes in Effects of ingestion because specific uses link back to specific effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.111.46 (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Nitrobutane, regarding your accusation of bias, I really don't think that word means what you think it means. If I share the same view as, and even openly state the same view as a majority of reliable sources also share; then that is not at all bias, at least in the context of Wikipedia. You seem to be under the impression that anybody who is wrong according to your personal views must be biased. The titles of some of those books yes may reveal their author's world view, but please for a second consider the way you look at them inside-out. You assume (biased?) that they had that worldview first, then allowed it to taint their research. Instead, consider that those titles & subheadings that reveal a world view came as a result of their research. Can you see that just having a world view is not bias? Bias comes when you have a world view first and unfairly refuse to accept evidence conflicting with it. Who in this thread won't accept the consensus of reliable sources, and allows his personal world view to unfairly accept only veeeeery unreliable and by definition tainted evidence from a website he is obviously connected to?? Another example: Your hilarious reason for excluding the authority of WP:MEDRS. "Mental not physical"?? That's funny. You're talking about putting a drug in your body for an effect and you think that's not covered by MEDRS? If you succeed in presenting this false view of generally pleasant trips, that will absolutely encourage a safer view of Datura by our readers. This stuff kills or permanently vegetablizes a whole lot of people. How dare you try to minimize it's danger with false information about it's use! Erowid is pure rubbish by every unbiased or neutral standard there is for reliable sources. After the way you blindly push it above real sources, how could you possibly expect us to believe you don't have a biased connection to that site yourself? --Tom Hulse (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Religious uses, etc.
IMHO this material, if it is included at all, should appear in a section of its own. Please, if you want to include this material, discuss it here and get some consensus before you add it. Lou Sander (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding splitting the material, I don't think the new stuff all belongs in a section of its own. It'd be possible to split the Effects section into Physical and Psychedelic. The material would spread between the two - some illustrations of physical effects w/reference to specific medicinal use; and the ritual/recreational uses would be described w/reference to the psychedelic effects.
 * Here at the top of this talk is the list of wikiprojects the Datura page belongs to, including:
 * "WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources."
 * Recommends, meaning there's no absolute need for every single source to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Especially considering psychedelic effects aren't medical - the physical effects are. Every source I've used for the physical effects is fine by WP:MEDRS, no problem there.
 * "WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of hallucinogens on Wikipedia"
 * Here meaning to improve the description of Datura's hallucinogenic properties - and 'improve' is the word, because Freye's "description" is a travesty. A better diversity of sources would be great. 85.211.111.46 (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please tell us why you call Frye's description "a travesty". He seems to be a highly-credentialed academic physician whose work is presented in a solid academic publication. Lou Sander (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nitrobutane, you are misapplying the "recommends" clause above. Read closer. That is for WP:MEDMOS. Yes it is optional. What we pointed to above is instead WP:MEDRS, for determining reliable sources. Psychedelic effects are actually well-covered by MEDRS. Per the Wikipedia Guideline, MEDRS applies to all "biomedical material". Here is a partial list of fields that are included. Psychopharmacology is one of those fields. It includes "a variety of different psychoactive substances that include alcohol, cannabinoids, club drugs, psychedelics, opiates, nicotine, caffeine, psychomotor stimulants, inhalants, and anabolic-androgenic steroids. They also study drugs used in the treatment of affective and anxiety disorders, as well as schizophrenia". So it would be a mistake to claim that a separate "mental" or "psychedelic" category is not covered by MEDRS.
 * Lou, I would agree with separating out that info. I would recommend a "Uses" section, as per the plants template. We could also then perhaps have a paragraph, or at least a sentence or two about recreational use; giving proper WP:WEIGHT to both views.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 08:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Lou, I referred specifically to describing Datura's hallucinogenic properties. And all Freye said to that end is a single dismissive phrase, not bothering to give detail or insight; by the standards of WikiProject Psychedelics articles it is indeed a travesty. I didn't mean Freye's entire quote is wrong. However, it provides no info about the positive medicinal or psychedelic Effects, which is why this section is in need of expansion. If a separate section were created, not all the material should go there, but some remain to illustrate certain effects. Tom, I never presented false information - everything I wrote has a source to back it up. Reread what I wrote, instead of 'how dare you'. And I never claimed 'generally pleasant trips', and did include a warning. There is also plenty of info about Datura's dangers in the rest of the article. And I don't 'only accept' evidence from Erowid either - my contribution has many sources. What I want to succeed in is providing the whole range of information about Datura's effects, and uses. Trippers hurt themselves on Datura less than people imagine. Whenever Teenager High On Jimsonweed Dies In Accident, it will make the headlines, but Teenager Wandered Around In Confused Delirium, Says: Whoa, Dude What Just Happened? - not so much. And same for Teenager Emerges From Angels' Trumpets Trip,Says: I'd Do It Again. Although it is true that some poisonings are fatal, I don't see where you'd get the idea that many end up vegetative. As for bias, I am talking about your implication that Erowid is bad because they show the experience reports from their users without rejecting the positive ones. I somehow don't think 'a majority of reliable sources' would agree with such an outrageous twisting of the evidence base. This is the third time I'm saying it now... Yes, there are subtle distinctions in the effects of a substance, and it'd be wrong to artificially simplify them to just 'an effect' from putting 'a drug' into a 'body'. Although the greater distinction is in how medical sources present physical and psychedelic effects. You say 'Psychedelic effects are actually well-covered by MEDRS.' - but not by the actual field of medical research, which sometimes tries to deny the psychedelic field altogether. Look at the disdain shown by works which casually prejudice the reader by dropping words like 'illegal' in titles. 'Illegal'='must be bad', even though it gives no scientific, medical or psychedelic information at all. With words like 'abuse' or 'misuse', many reports are implying that all substance use is bad, pretending there's no possibility of subtle, positive or insightful effects. Some titles of this sort may not even reflect any prejudice inside the work, and be for appearance's sake - but what appearance? The assumption 'all drugs are bad', God forbid the researcher appear to be suggesting otherwise! I am defending Erowid on principle, because of its great educational value. It has collected a range of detailed information about a very wide spectrum of mind-altering substances. Greater range and depth than any other single source anywhere. But of course I'm 'obviously biasedly connected' to it, Can you imagine I'm standing up to the slander not for some specific interest you assume I'm connected to, but in the interests of veracity? Do you know that Erowid Center is a registered 501(c)(3) educational nonprofit? Not only the website, but they do work for other harm reduction, health, and educational organizations, provide them research and data. This data is from literature, experts in pharmacy and related fields, and the substance experiences of the public - which they screen with a careful process before presenting it on the website. But of course, it's 'veeeeery unreliable pure rubbish', not a 'real source' anyone who disagrees is neither 'unbiased or neutral' and must have a 'biased' connection to it. (I'm actually laughing as I write this) All because it disagrees with you, who seems not to know much about the nature of Erowid, or what it does. If you don't believe what I say, go to Erowid and look over its page for any random substance (like maybe Datura itself, or LSD, or cannabis, or banana skins, or red mercury), and see for yourself. Not just the Experiences page, but the broader Substance page that includes it. (unless you think you know everything about Erowid already). Lastly, consider:

It appears I'm not the only one who thinks so Nitrobutane, aka 85.211.111.46 (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) I propose that the Effects section be expanded to show that the effects Freye listed (and some he didn't) as adverse can also be medicinal, and a short mention of the healing use of these effects. Same for the mental effects. The rest of the religious etc uses can be in their own section 85.211.111.46 (talk) 08:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a reasonable approach. Since this is a somewhat contested area, it would be good if you could post your suggested changes here first, so others can consider them and comment. Don't forget that everything needs to be reliably sourced. Lou Sander (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm very familiar with Erowid, I first visited there in about 2001 as part of my research as a Director at the American Brugmansia and Datura Society. I know exactly what their quality of information is. "Nonprofit" is a bit of a misnomer in the United States, since it's just a method to take your profit through salries instead of paying corporate taxes. The Wikipedia Erowid page doesn't draw much interest, so it is probably maintained by the owners. One of the key mistakes there: it should say "Erowid Center's stated mission is to provide...", since the following language about objectivity, etc. would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It should be clear that the flowery language is what Erowid thinks about itself, not that it is an endorsement from Wikipedia. They've acknowledged themselves that much of what they describe and even advocate is illegal in their home country and many other countries, for instance their whole site is banned in all of Russia, among other places; so it's not really bias when reliable sources also include the "illegal" term, it's just a reflection of the majority view of society. I acknowledge your right to hold the minority view that recreational drug use can actually be enlightening instead of just making you believe it is so while it harms you, and I even accept such minority views have a place in Wikipedia, but lets be fair, you don't get to just shout down the majority public and the majority of reliable sources with your views. Per WP:WEIGHT, your minority view just gets a brief mention, it doesn't get to dominate the article into an "enlightened" perspective about rec drug not being illegal or harmful. When you include medicinal uses, make sure to be very clear that traditional sources "were" used, or are "claimed" to heal, or something similar to separate us away from giving medical advice, unless it meets the strict and clear requirements of WP:MEDRS. We have to be detached into more of a historical sense, for instance much of Vietnam thinks rhino horn cures cancer, and we can't state that it actually does like a plain fact; we have to be clear we are reporting they only think it does.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC) you actually ignorant of how
 * The majority of people do not actually believe drugs are 100% bad. Acknowledging the enlightening, mind-expanding potential isn't a 'minority view'. How blithely have you assumed you view 'all drugs are completely awful' is some kind of 'majority public view'? (then giving me your gracious patronising permission to disagree, - and even acknowledging that editors who think they represent the majority view shouldn't wipe out the opposing view, how marvellous of you). Are you even aware of how many scientific discoveries were made under the influence of mind-altering substances? (...do you even care?) Cannot believe you'd let this antidrug prejudice cloud your perception so much. Also cannot believe you'd hold up Russian web censorship as some kind of neutral representative example.
 * Lastly, you've ignored evidence that the world, including the world of science, holds Erowid in high regard:



Proposed new sections
here are two new sections to replace Effects of Ingestion:

 Immediate effects 

Datura is used for both spiritual and medicinal purposes with great care. It is a very powerful herb, due to the potent combination of mainly anticholinergic substances it contains. At low dosages its most prominent effects are antidiarrhoeal, anaesthetic (used by the Zuni in medical procedures) and anti-inflammatory (used by the Aztec to reduce swelling and relieve rheumatism). At higher dosages there is a degree of hyperthermia, tachycardia, and mydriasis (dilated pupils). The resultant photophobia can last several days. Outwardly, there is often bizarre, and possibly violent behavior. Pronounced amnesia is another commonly reported effect. Urine secretion and intestinal motility decrease, slowing excretion of the active substances and their metabolites, and prolonging the effect.

Pharmacology and Abuse of Cocaine, Amphetamines, Ecstasy and Related Designer Drugs asserts: "No other substance has received as many '“Train Wreck” severely negative experience reports' as has Datura. The overwhelming majority of those who describe their use of Datura find their experiences extremely unpleasant both mentally and often physically dangerous.. " However, with a body of experience indigenous groups, It is the large doses of Datura that cause the loss-of-awareness anticholinergic delirium and violent behaviour. At moderate doses Datura may cause sleepiness instead. Many experience reports can be found in Erowid's "Datura Vault".

 Spiritual and medicinal uses 

The strongly mind-altering and bioactive Datura is used in ritual context as a sacred hallucinogen, and as medicine by many indigenous peoples in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas, including the Aztec and Zuni (who both revere it as one of the Plants of The Gods), the Kunama (who use it in dance rituals) the Navajo and the Yokut. (at least twelve different tribes in California alone) Datura is used for both spiritual and medicinal purposes with great care. It is a very powerful herb, due to the potent combination of mainly anticholinergic substances it contains. At low dosages the most prominent are its antidiarrhoeal, anaesthetic and anti-inflammatory effects.

A 2013 review of the pharmacology and toxicology of Datura notes other medicinal effects, including:


 * Antiasthmatic activity

Atropine and scopolamine block the muscarinic (particularly the M2) receptors on airway smooth muscle and submucosal gland cells, which dilates bronchial smooth muscle and eases asthmatic attacks. Charpin et al ) reported that a D. stramonium cigarette is effective in asthmatic patients with mild airway obstruction. However, if used during pregnancy, will cause a continuous release of acetylcholine, desensitizing the nicotinic receptors, and possibly causing permanent damage to the fetus.


 * Epilepsy

Combination therapy with D. stramonium and other herbs has a protective anti-epileptic effect. A model of status epilepticus was induced in male rats by injection of lithium (3 mmol/kg) and pilocarpine (30 g/kg). Rats were then treated with herbal mixture containing D. stramonium. One week after the induction of status epilepticus, the rat group treated with extracts of Scutellaria lateriflora (Skullcap), Gelsemium sempervirens (Gelsemium) and D. stramonium (Jimson Weed) displayed no seizure during treatment. D. stramonium was very effective as vibriocidal against various strains of Vibreo cholera and Vibreo parahaemolyticus. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) value of acetone extracts of D. stramonium was in the range of 2.5 to 15 mg/mL serving as broad-spectrum vibriocidal agents.


 * Antifungal activity

Acetone extracts of D. stramonium have antifungal activity against several fungi including Penicillium expansum, Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus parasiticus, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, Fusarium oxysporum, Trichoderma harzianum, Phytophthora nicotiana, Pythium ultimum and Rhizoctonia solani. The MIC of the extracts ranges from 1.25 to 2.5 mg/mL.


 * Anti-inflammatory activity

Ethanolic extract of D. stramonium leaf was active against carrageenan-induced paw edema in rats. 39.43% inhibition of the edema was observed after 3 h of oral administration of 200 mg/kg extracts. Maximum activity was observed when the extract was administered in doses of 3-hour intervals. Since this edema involves the release of histamine and serotonin in the first phase, the effect of the extracts could be partly due to inhibition of mast cell mediator release.


 * Other activities

D. stramonium was reported to have an effect against carcinoma of the nasopharynx at a therapeutic dose of 0.05 to 0.1 g. However, precaution should be taken since adverse anticholinergic effects may occur.

Datura was used for purposes such as attaining visions, spiritual healing, contact with one's Guiding Spirit, divination, and for pleasure. Aztec also used Datura for its anti-inflammatory effects, particularly to reduce swelling and relieve rheumatism. The Yaqui used it as anaesthetic during childbirth. Zuni also used it as anaesthetic in medical procedures. At moderate doses Datura may be aphrodisiac (however sleepiness may result instead). Datura was also used medically in India and China. Buddhism valued Datura highly, and it had a divine significance in Ancient Greek temples.

The Navajo and especially the Havasupai also used Datura recreationally.

At moderate doses Datura may be aphrodisiac (however sleepiness may result instead). Datura is a complex and powerful psychedelic. Getting the dose right is critical. If an overdose occurs, the Datura experience may be overly powerful and frightening. The anticholinergic effects may persist for many days or weeks, with tight throat and difficuty swallowing, blurred vision, hallucinations akin to acid flashbacks and difficulty concentrating. Some have a mystical experience described in terms of a 'rebirth'. Many experience reports can be found in Erowid's 85.211.99.81 (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a bit of decent material here, but it needs quite a bit of work before it can be considered for inclusion in the article. IMHO it is far too long, and not very carefully put together. For example, the references are not well formatted. The grammar and flow aren't very good IMHO. There seems to be a great emphasis on past use by tribal peoples, shamans, etc., possibly raising issues of undue weight. I don't have time to work on this stuff myself. Lou Sander (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Lou Sander: I'll finish editing the text from the 2013 review and it'll be shorter; however even then the scientific-medical info will be far in majority surely? so issues of undue weight shouldn't arise

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Datura. 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/20071012085820/http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/459 to http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/4/459

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) 13:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)