User talk:Turkeyphant/Archive Aug 2007

Psychedelics
Hi there... I noticed you said you specialize in psychedelics under Wikiproject Pharmacology, and was hoping to get your opinion on the definition of what constitutes a psychedelic drug. I was heavily involved with the definition used on the psychedelic drug as well as the psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants pages, but have been in discussions/arguments over the past several months with a user (Jolb) regarding use of the term "psychedelic". --Thoric 22:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a question that greatly interests me. As you know, the "psychedelics" vary massively in chemistry and pharmacology and there is no clear way to define what is a psychedelic and what isn't.  Indeed, in addition to there being no clear criteria, it is hard to know what would make a substance more or less psychedelic.


 * In light of this, I'm currently resigned to the wishy-washy notion of defining psychedelics by their effects. Psychedelics have come to be defined socially by those who use them - psychedelic art, thought and experience is easier to define that psychedelic substances.  If the (very) subjective psychopharmacological effects resemble "core" psychedelics (such as LSD, psilocybin and DMT) the substance can be said to have a psychedelic character.


 * So, in my opinion, ketamine, 2C-B and muscimol can be psychedelic drugs whilst cannabis and MDMA probably aren't. I appreciate this is ill-defined and very confused but I've come to the opinion that there is no clear category of psychedelic vs non-psychedelic.  This is the best way I can think of to cover the variety of psychedelic experience.  Please let me know if you want me to try to clarify or elaborate.  Tu rk ey ph an t

I am curious if you have read over the dispute history between Jolb and myself. My argument is that we need a classification to distinguish between the stimulating, "mind-expanding", LSD-like drugs, and the sedating, dissociative, ketamine-like drugs. I am currently using "psychedelic" for the former, and "dissociative" for the latter. Unfortunately it seems that there is much controversy over psychedelic, and few people can agree on its meaning, which effectively leaves us without a term for the non-dissociative hallucinogens. --Thoric 19:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since making this comment, I have very briefly looked over your disagreement. My position is that I agree that a distinction is required.  I think many dissociatives have distinctive psychedelic characteristics and deserve to be classified as psychedelics.  I cannot see a way round this as a k-hole, for example, is unmistakably psychedelic - often moreso than a mild mushroom or mescaline trip.  So clearly there are subsets of psychedelics - dissociative ones such as ketamine and (perhaps) empathogenic psychedelics such as MDA.  However, as you appreciate, this leaves a problem when categorising the "true" psychedelics like psilocybin, DMT, LSD and mescaline.  They probably cannot really be the psychedelic psychedelics although I don't think this is as much of a problem as it first seems.  Perhaps the serotonergic psychedelics?  But is salvia a dissociative or "true" psychedelic?

Salvia definitely appears to be a dissociative, but not the NMDA agonist type. Serotonergic psychedelics could work, but it would be nice if we had a single term. BTW, is a k-hole any more "psychedelic" than being in a sensory deprivation tank? --Thoric 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I'll be able to clear much of this up in my own mind without thinking about it a bit more, I'm afraid. However, for the moment, I'd be inclined to keep the distinction between ketamine/DXM/nitrous-like dissociative substances whilst acknowledging their psychedelic character.
 * One issue I have with your chart is the use of the word "hallucinogen". I don't really know what you mean by this - in the literature is is often used as a synonym for "psychedelic".  Is there no better word that includes empathogens, deliriants and psychedelics?  Tu rk ey ph an t 12:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We are considering the use of the term psychotomimetic to replace hallucinogen. What do you think? --Thoric 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be even more strongly opposed to that. There is a very good reason it was dropped a long long time ago - it's misleading and entirely inaccurate.  Pretty much everyone who writes on psychedelics (whether books, scientific journals or whatever) rejects that term.  Even hallucinogen is better since it's less inaccurate and is more prevalent. What exactly is wrong with psychedelic other than categorisation difficulties?  Tu rk ey ph an t 19:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with psychedelic is that there are about four different camps: (1) people who believe it should only refer to classic serotonergic psychedelics such as mescaline, LSD and psilocybin (2) people who believe it can also include substances such as MDMA and THC, but not the dissociatives or deliriants (3) people who believe it instead includes other substances that induce visionary states (so not MDMA, but PCP, ketamine, DXM, and possibly even the deliriants) and lastly (4) people who see it as a better term for hallucinogen, as to them it includes not only visionary substances, but enactogens (and THC) as well. These camps are well distributed even among experts. --Thoric 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but I don't think that's a problem with the term itself - rather, it's an issue of definition in general. I don't see how replacing it with hallucinogen or any other fuzzy synonm will help.  Further, I will argue that words such as hallucinogen and psychotomimetic (probably the two most common alternatives) suffer from at least as many problems.
 * At the moment I'm thinking that perhaps "serotonergic psychedelic" is best for those in camp (1). Camp (2) does not make much sense to me so I don't have any suggestions. I think I fall in camp (3) and perhaps entheogen is a more suitable word for this class of substances as it clears up some confusions.  As for position (4), I'm not sure how psychedelic can include THC by the same reasoning that excludes it from hallucinogen.
 * I apologise because what I'm saying is still quite confused, but I maintain the the letter and intent of the majority of expert writers tends toward equating psychedelic with position (3). Let me know what you think...  Tu rk ey ph an t 23:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I would say that the majority of experts would take position (3), especially if you ask those who specialize in this area. We would need a survey before coming to any such conclusions. Do note that THC has been known to cause visionary states when ingesting higher doses, as well as having a strong synergy with the classic psychedelics. MDMA also holds a similar connection. As for entheogen, this term is more specific to the intended usage rather than the substance itself. --Thoric 15:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that entheogen is an imperfect solution, but it is certainly preferable to psychotomimetic or hallucinogen (though ill-suited for a medical context). I have been in touch with several people involved in psychedelic research and all have used psychedelic in their communication with me.  I'm not sure that "synergy" is sufficient for belonging to the same class and my own research tends to agree with this. THC and MDMA are even further removed from hallucination-causing substances than DMT and LSD...  Tu rk ey ph an t 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My argument isn't that THC and MDMA are particularly visionary, but that they are mind-manifesting (psychedelic means mind-manifesting, not vision-inducing). I see psychedelics as substances which reveal -- open doors so to speak (mind-expanding, making you more aware). This does not have to be visual. It can be cerebral -- make you think, realize things you didn't know you knew. MDMA can most certainly facilitate this for some people. The dissociatives on the other hand, close doors -- dull and cut off your senses such that your focus is narrowed... more deeply within your mind. I see the visionary states induced by these substances more akin to sensory deprivation. True, this state of mind can also reveal the internals of the mind, but it is here that we come back to my previous argument; we already have a term to refer to substances such as DXM, ketamine and PCP -- they are dissociatives. Do they really need claim to psychedelic as well? Encyclopedia Britannica describes psychedelic drugs as, "any of the so-called mind-expanding drugs that are able to induce states of altered perception and thought, frequently with heightened awareness of sensory input but with diminished control over what is being experienced.. This description does not appear to apply to the dissociatives.  --Thoric 15:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that psychedelic should be used as intended - meaning "mind-manifesting" and not "visionary". However, I would strongly disagree that THC is particularly visionary even at igh doses.  The stoning quality of THC and other synthetic analogues is vastly different to the expanded consciousness of serotonergic psychedelics.  Likewise, I feel the mindset induced by MDMA, while cerebral, is not "mind-manifesting" in the same way as LSD is.
 * It almost seems as though you are confusing visual with visionary. While most psychedelics, often exhibit strong visual activity, there are many that are completely devoid of visual perceptual changed.  Indeed, the prototypical mind-manifesting psychedelic effects are entirely mental.  The mental effects of ketamine and LSD are similar - those of MDMA and THC are very different.  It is upon this basis that I define my use of the word psychedelic.  Although dissociatives "close doors" in a perceptual sense, in a mind-manifesting sense they often open doors more than other psychedelic substances.  This is why there are also psychedelics.  Sensory deprivation is commonly cited as a way to induce "psychedelic" experiences.
 * As for the Britannica entry (in general I don't think it's a great article, but that's irrelevant), I think that definition (regardless of its errors) backs up the classification I support.  Tu rk ey ph an t 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelics
''Have you read this yet?  Tu rk ey ph an t 21:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)''
 * Yes, I did, though I have to respectfully disagree with yours and Jolb's opinion that the Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin group is equitably "psychedelic" as Ketamine/PCP/DXM. My position is more aligned with the view that the classic serotonergic psychedelics (Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin) are consciousness expanding, overwhelm the senses with input, and that the term "psychedelic" best represents drugs that fit that profile.  Dissociatives such as Ketamine/PCP/DXM work in a very different way, and rather than overwhelming the senses, they starve them, not quite unlike a sensory deprivation tank experience, and the low-dose dissociative visual effects are somewhat related to the hypnagogic pre-sleep state.  Perhaps what we have here is a problem with terminology, but if we are simply looking for a word to imply that these substances induce visionary states, then there already exist plenty of words.  Every single definition that you will find of the word "psychedelic" with respect to ingested substances will first focus on the classics Mescaline/LSD/Psilocybin, and only refer to the dissociatives as an afterthought, if at all.  I, as well as numerous others, believe that the dissociatives should not be lumped in with this group, if for the only reason that they already have a term to describe their effects -- "dissociative".  --Thoric 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree - the term "psychedelic" refers to serotonergic substances better. However, this does not mean that dissociatives do not have a substantial psychedelic character too.  I think it's a fallacy to not consider ketamine, for example, to be a psychedelic simply because there is another term to describe it.  In my opinion, much of the reason some of these chemicals are so interesting is the fact their action varies so much.  Tu rk ey ph an t 12:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not so much as that I'm saying that the dissociatives do not produce what can be considered to be a psychedelic experience, as much as I'm trying to point out that we require terminology to describe drugs such as LSD which "open the reducing value" so to speak, in contrast to drugs such as Ketamine which cause dissociation. While there may be overlap in the experiences, and the places and states of mind one can attain, the pathways there are markedly different.  Those who have experienced both would not confuse one for the other.  Perhaps psychedelic is not the most correct term to separate the serotonergics from the dissociatives, but the terminology available is limited.  --Thoric 16:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. So what, in your opinion, is wrong with "serotonergic psychedelic"?  This term seems to be the best of both worlds to me - it emphasises the difference from dissociatives whilst still acknowledging the psychedelic characteristic.  Tu rk ey ph an t 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing is inherently wrong with it, other than it is very specific to the receptors involved, and does not provide us with a generic term to refer to a substance which may have this particular sort of mind-loosening effect. It would be nice to have a single word to describe this.  "Psychedelic" has been used in this capacity, but as you point out, it has also been used inclusive of the dissociatives, as well as many other unrelated substances.  --Thoric 17:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)