Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs/Categorization

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Categories needing to be organized/worked out[edit]

Discussion on current categorization scheme[edit]

conversation copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics/categorization

Deliriants are also dissociatives (as are muscimol and ibotenic acid), the current categorization does not make this apparent. Likewise, hallucinogenic tryptamines, hallucinogenic tryptamine carriers, hallucinogenic phenethylamines and hallucinogenic phenethylamine carriers are all "psychedelics" for lack of a better term (in the context of a non-dissociative hallucinogen). The cannabis category should also likely be cannabinoid, as there are plenty of them... but maybe more correct as hallucinogenic cannabinoids if we're going to focus in that area. --Thoric 22:53, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the focus on "cannabinoids" as one of the things this project is taking into account is cultural, etc factors; "cannabis" and the usage of it should be part of this. cannabinoids is a category under cannabis . . . I don't really know how i feel about that and tobacco; i think its important that they are covered, as nicotine and tobacco is a very potent deliriant/dissociative in very high doses, and cannabis is somewhat hallucinogenic and is used as an entheogen . . . But they are such large topics in themselves, stuff i personally don't think we should concern ourselves with. so we have to figure something out with that, how far we are going to reach in those areas.
as for the other two things, how do we work this in? Dissociatives and deliriants are considered to be different things; if it was up to me, they'd be one class, but i don't get to decide how people describe things. so how do you think we should make this apparent? having deliriants as a sub category of dissociative? combining them into one category, ala entactogens and empathogens? two subcategories of a larger subcategory? considering 5-meo-dmt, ecstacy and lsd all to be "psychedelics" doesn't, imo, seem much different from having an umbrella term to cover pcp as well as datura.
I think classifying hallucinogenic tryptamines, etc as psychedelics is a good idea; would this be a category in between hallucinogens and the halluninogenic tryptamines etc categories? I don't want to get rid of any of those categories, as they were sort of created to avoid stepping on other people's toes- plants aren't chemicals and shouldn't be classed as such, serotonin is not a hallucinogen, etc. but its certainly a categegorization we should take into account . . . --Heah 00:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the material below, unless time stamped after this time, is moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hallucinogens, Entheogens, and Related Topics/categorization following correction of page name, dunno why the talk page didn't move. --Heah 03:01, 5 May 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Nicotine is not a really deliriant, it is actually a cholinergic (and oxidizes to nicotinic acid -- niacin). Deliriants are different than the other dissociatives, but they are still dissociatives. I have a sort of organizational chart on my talk page Chart, but here's a rough breakdown:

HALLUCINOGENS

  • Psychedelics
    • Cannabis
      • Cannabinoids
        • THC
        • CBD
        • CBN
        • CBG
    • Phenethylamines
      • Empathogens
        • MDMA
        • MDA
        • MDEA
      • Mescaline
    • Tryptamines
      • LSD
      • Psilocybin
      • DMT
    • (Ibogaine)
  • Dissociatives
    • Anesthetics
      • Ketamine
      • PCP
      • DXM
      • Nitrous Oxide
    • Kappa opioid receptor agonists
      • Salvinorin-A
      • Salvinorin-C
    • Cholinergics
      • Ibotenic Acid
      • Muscimol
    • Anticholinergics
      • Atropine
      • Scopolamine

--Thoric 14:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, i definitely came across your chart at some point, don't remember exactly how . . . Your organization of the dissociatives looks excellent, if there are no objections i'll put that into effect. I'm also fine with putting the lysergamides into the tryptamines category; the lysergamides category was already there, and i was curious about just that. I think the "hallucinogenic" should remain in front of "tryptamines" as they aren't all hallucinogenic, and the "carrier" categories need to be worked in there- perhaps just under tryptamines or phenethylamines? as for phenethylamines, would it be proper to put them all into "empathogens" except for mescaline? I'm personally sort of unclear on the usage of that term, what makes something an empathogen as opposed to just a hallucinogen, which is why i haven't done much with the category. --Heah 02:36, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the above was a "rough breakdown", LSD and LSA can certainly go under a lysergamide subcategory of the hallucinogenic tryptamines. There are also quite a few other non-empathogenic phenethylamines appart from mescaline (DOM, 2C-B, 2C-I, etc). Only a few phenethylamines are classed as empathogens (MDMA, MDEA, MDA, AET and MBDB), and they are all similar in action to MDMA in that they do not produce significant visual or audial distortions, but instead act on mood and emotion and tend to generate feelings of empathy. BTW, you likely found my chart on the Talk:Drug page :) --Thoric 03:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i've put the deliriants under the dissociatives, and the lysergamides under tryptamines. If you want to eliminate the deliriants category in favor of your more accurate categorization scheme, i'd say go for it, but personally i'm not comfortable doing that. If that happens, we will need somewhere to put all the carriers- plants like mandrake and whatnot, as they aren't chemicals . . . --Heah (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
also just created psychedelics category, with hall. tryptamines, lysergamides, and phenethylamines under it.--Heah (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People and organizations[edit]

In People and organizations, I suggest adding William Burroughs, Howard Lotsof, Jonathan Ott, Daniel Pinchbeck and Rick Strassman. Self-evident I think. Nice projects, by the way. — FJ | hello 07:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

I saw Hunter S. Thompson at the bottom, and I thought he would be a definate for Researchers, Users and (forgot). I'm sure some of you have seen Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, he is definatly a user and could be considered a researcher. By the way, I just found out about the wiki(nation?) and I will be contributing a lot to the drug related sections. I'm also thinking about starting a broader wiki on recreational drugs. --AGruntsJaggon 09:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

changes to cat page[edit]

the cat page should reflect how things are actually set up; if there are to be changes, there should be at least mention of it here to make sure there aren't disagreements. accordingly, i've changed the categories back to the way they were to reflect the way the categories are actually set up. --Heah (talk) 22:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

harmala[edit]

harmala is a tryptamine, at least according to the article; it is also hallucinogenic on its own in high enough doses, and is not just a "potentiator" of dmt. pure caapi brews with no admixture are not unheard of, and certainly have perceptual etc effects. in addition, caapi contains at least trace quantities of 5-meo-dmt. --Heah (talk) 22:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Terence McKenna, harmala is only really hallucinogenic in near fatal doses due to the toxic effects. Pure caapi brews are likely none too popular ;) --Thoric 22:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

not that this can be cited or used here, but for the sake of conversation some discussion of caapi only brews can be found atthe Ayahuasca Forum; in my own experience (which of course has occured only in places where such experience is completely legal,) harmala has effects at doses well below what might be "near fatal". my guess is that mckenna was referring to the use of [harmal|Syrian Rue], which contains lots of highly toxic chemicals in addition to harmala; even with rue, taking enough to create a hallucinogenic experience creates an experience that is very uncomfortable but not quite physically dangerous. when using harmala to potentiate dmt, rather than other orally active tryptamines, a dose with at least threshhold effects is required. it should also be kept in mind that in the rainforest, it is caapi that is named and considered "ayahuasca"; viridis and whatnot, containing dmt, are only considered "additives" to the tea- helper plants. the strength and the nature of the experience is said to lie within the caapi vine. i actually think that this is a rather important question, and when i get back from south america in late july i'll find some references and whatnot. --Heah (talk) 22:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harmala is not a tryptamine, it is a beta-carboline. This really should be fixed. Whig 23:20, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ether[edit]

Isn't ether a sedative/hypnotic, more closely related to substances like alcohol, barbituates, chloral hydrate, chloroform, GHB, etc? Simply being an anesthetic doesn't mean it's a dissociative anesthetic. --Thoric 22:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous thoughts about additions[edit]

I was wondering if the THC_Ministry and Roger_Christie should be linked somewhere, seeing as the Native American Church is. Maybe links to Shamanism are also appropriate? I was also wondering why the title was changed not to include the word Entheogen, and I hadn't looked very closely but is there a link to the Entheogen article?--thereverendeg 21:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

people/organizations proposal[edit]

a proposal for the categorization of people, organizations and etc. w/o objections i will implement it in a few days.

Category:People associated with psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants

Category:Organizations and projects associated with psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants

Category:Books and essays on psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants

and i'm sure there are more of these.

thoughts? i still think there must be a better way to break it down. i wanted to seperate "researchers" from religious users, for example, but it gets tricky. There isn't always a clear line between the two, like with leary or huxley for example.

Semiconscious' idea on people categorization is better than mine, i think we should go with that. We still might need a place for people like, say, Maria Sabina, who don't exactly advocate that people take hallucinogens, and aren't researchers. A religious users category might be useful (i just realized that contrary to my objection above, it obviously isn't an issue to put people in more than one category!) as well as perhaps a shamanic usage category? Like Sabina clearly states one shouldn't take mushrooms to see god; not that you won't see god, but you should only use them to heal, so is religious usage really a correct categorization for her? on the other hand i can't think of any other shamans/curanderos who used hallucinogens ritually and have an article here . . .--Heah talk 00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychoactive_and_Recreational_Drugs/Categorization&oldid=1137367762"