User talk:Thoric/archive1

My Drug Chart

 * Blue : Stimulants generally increase in potency to the upper left.
 * Red : Depressants generally increase in potency to the lower right.
 * Green : "Hallucinogens" are psychedelic to the left, dissociative to the right, generally less predictable down and to the right, and generally more potent towards the bottom.
 * Pink hue : The so called "antipsychotics". A new and controversial addition to the chart.


 * White: Overlap of all three main sections (Stimulants, Depressants and Hallucinogens) — Example: cannabis exhibits effects of all three sections.
 * Magenta (purple): Overlap of Stimulants (Blue) and Depressants (Red) — Example: nicotine exhibits effects of both.
 * Cyan (light blue): Overlap of Stimulants (Blue) and Psychedelics (Green) — Primary psychedelics exhibit a stimulant effect
 * Yellow : Overlap of Depressants (Red) and Dissociatives (Green) — Primary dissociatives exhibit a depressant effect





STIMULANTS

Sympathomimetic Amines Psychomotor Stimulants Amphetamines Cathinone (Khat) Methylphenidate Cocaine

Amino ketones Bupropion Diethylpropion

SSRIs Paroxetine Fluoxetine Sertraline

Ephedrine Pseudoephedrine

Methylxanthines Caffeine Theophylline Theobromine

ANTIPSYCHOTICS Atypical antipsychotics Clozapine Risperidone Olanzapine Quetiapine

Typical antipsychotics Haloperidol Fluphenazine Thioridazine Chlorpromazine

CBD

Cholinergics Nicotine Betel nut Muscarine

DEPRESSANTS

Sedative Hypnotics Alcohol Ether Barbiturates Chloroform Chloral hydrate Methaqualone GHB

Benzodiazepines Lorazepam Alprazolam Flunitrazepam Diazepam

Narcotic Analgesics Opium Codeine Morphine Heroin Fentanyl

Cannabis (THC) Psychedelics MDMA  MDA MDEA Mescaline DOM LSD Psilocybin AMT DMT Ibogaine

Dissociatives Ketamine DXM PCP Nitrous Oxide Salvinorin A Ibotenic acid  Muscimol

Deliriants Dimenhydrinate Diphenhydramine Scopolamine Atropine HALLUCINOGENS

Hi Thoric, looks like you put much work into this scheme :-) It gives a nice overview over all these psychoactives.

However, do not forget that it does not explain anything in a scientific sense. In reality there are NOT three different biochemical or neurophysiological aspects that you can mix like colors to get every possible effect. While the scheme seems suggestive at first, it is highly biased in that you were a priori starting with the assumption of exactly these three different dimensions.

But each compound class has its very own qualities and you would need at least as many categories as you have substances to group the compounds in a multidimensional room to see if there are indeed just a few main dimensions, what they might be, and if one could correlate that somehow to the pharmacological mechanisms of these drugs, e.g. to see if they trigger the same neurological mechanisms.

Try to see it as the frontview of a three-dimensional representation. If you now look from the side you may see that the classes that seemed so close before are actually farther away than the classes with the highest distance before. Pretty much like star clusters in the universe. But in a multidimensional space :-) Cacycle

Oh, I do realize that these substances are far more complex than this grouping, and yes, it would be cool to have a 3D model, but I was thinking more of something that would be workable on a site such as this. A visual model would certainly be useful.

The groupings are mainly based on the primary drug class label that is generally slapped on a particular drug (i.e. CNS Depressant, CNS Stimulant), and also a subgroup where available.

Thanks to the DEA, the average person sees little distinction between different drugs... "crack, crank, junk, dope, acid, they're all the same to me". The labeling of all illegal drugs as "narcotics" doesn't help either ;)

My hope is to provide some clarity for the layman. --Thoric 23:35, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The labelling of all illegal drugs as "narcotics" is stupid, really... But what can we do, people choose to be ignorant. It's a pity that there is such a gap in understanding between the knowledge-driven medical scientists and the agenda-driven politicians. (Btw, I didn't think nicotine was a depressant... Unless it's related to desensitisation of the nicotinic ACh receptors). -Techelf 13:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The only thing that can be done is try to get the knowledge out there. Governments have been suppressing information for quite a while now, but with more and more people turning to the Internet for information, we stand a chance of restoring some balance.  An important part is to clarify things for the average person so they can understand it.  Btw, on my chart, nicotine is more to the stimulant side, but touching on the depressant side... but only because it often seems to be described as both -- depending on the amount used.  Although it is recognized as a stimulant, I see it classified as "stimulant/depressant" all over the place (it supposedly has CNS depressant properties)... so I placed it in the middle.  Should it be further to the left?  --Thoric 18:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cannabis
This is cross-posted to Talk:Psychoactive drug, it's probably simpler to reply there.

While I think the Venn diagram is excellent, I'm a little concerned about Cannabis. On inspection, it looks like cannabis simply fits all three of the major categories, but when I first saw it I thought it was a POV statment and/or subliminal message in favor of smoking marijuana. I don't see an obvious fix, but you might want to keep that in mind if you can think of a way to fix it in some future edit. -- stillnotelf   has a talk page  01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yours from the beginning?
Just curious, has this chart been yours from the beginning? -- stillnotelf   has a talk page  04:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

A well-deserved recognition
Star moved to Thoric's user page — I, stillnotelf, award a Graphic Designer's Barnstar to Thoric for his incredible work on the Psychoactive Drug Chart.

Great job! -- stillnotelf   has a talk page  05:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Meh, Not Featured Image Quality

 * I think that images that are to be featured should be inviting (aka good looking). Diagrams and maps just don't do that (most of the time). That's why I am opposed. I have no problem with all these diagrams and I congratulate whoever put all the work into making it, but that doesn't mean that it deserves to be featured. Please respond on my talk page or on the Featured Image Candidates page. -- ʀ6ʍ ɑ  ʏ89  03:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:BlankDrugChart.png marked as Copyright, marked for deletion
BTW, both the POV concern above ("cannabis in the center...") and the Featured Image comment above are nonsense. Great chart, I'd like to see it featured, and I do find diagrams compelling. Have you seen The visual display of quantitative information?

StrangerInParadise 20:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Psychedelic pages
Here are some pages on psychedelic stuff that I have an interest in:


 * Psychedelic
 * Psychedelic music
 * Psychedelic art
 * Psychedelic experience
 * Psychedelic literature
 * Psychedelic era