Talk:Psychoactive drug

This article ought to be deleted and the information contained therein ought to be put in Category:Psychoactive drugs. - Centrx 03:14, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accolades

To whomever made the drug chart. It is fantastic and cleared up a lot of confusion for me. Before the chart drugs were a tangled mess in my head. This did a great job of clarifying things for me, quickly and easily, can this be nominated for a Wikipedia award or something. TimL 14:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Why, thank-you very much :) Stillnotelf awarded me a Graphic Designer's Barnstar for the design, but if you mean that this chart should be recognized by Wikipedia, there is always the Wikipedia Featured Picture Candidates page where you could nominate the chart (likely under Drawings and diagrams). --Thoric 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm I think there is a problem with that though as it is an image with text overlaid. The image itself is just the background. Not sure how to proceed. TimL 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded a 300px image based on a screen capture so it shows the links (still readable too). Hopefully this will straighten things out ;) --Thoric 17:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Drug chart

I added in my drug chart here... with hopes it will be improved upon ;)

Items I'm unsure if I've placed correctly:

• Cannabis -- should this be in the psychedelic section?
• Should the cholinergics be shifted left into the blue?
• Ibogaine -- psychedelic, dissociative, or both?
• Which dissociatives should or should not be considered to also be depressants?
• Does adrenaline/epineprine belong in here?

--Thoric 20:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know you worked hard on the chart, but its format as a sort of ven diagram is really innapropriate. Grouping in that way with the overlaps is too subjective. Too many of the substances can be argued to be in more then the overlapping categories.

The groupings are the same as in medical texts (sedative hypnotics, narcotic analgesics, psychomotor stimulants, dissociative anesthetics, etc, etc), so I don't see how they are "subjective". Certainly many drugs have multiple effects, but most drugs fall into a primary category. If the medical community labels a certain drug a certain way, then how would organizing these drugs and categories into a chart be anything but helpful to the layperson who doesn't know the difference between cocaine and heroin? Please explain and be more specific. --Thoric 15:42, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't think this diagram will be that helpful. I am a medical student and the chart really confused me. Looks like partly overlapping boxes? If that is so, the middle part with the cholinergics wouldn't make sense. And looks like you place the SSRI's under the antipsychotics??? I think the variety of drugs involved is too complex to fit in such a diagram. I think this diagram should be removed.

How about improved rather than removed? This chart is to help the lay-person, not a medical student... but I'm concerned to why you'd be confused by it... Is subtractive color mixing too complicated for you? There are 3 (+1) overlapping boxes, blue for stimulants, red for depressants, green for "halluncinogens" and pink for antipsychotics. The overlapping areas include areas with shared tendencies. Do you think the middle part with the cholinergics should be more to the left? Then say so! Don't just say that it wouldn't make sense -- say why. There's a nice blank spot for them in the blue zone immediate to the left of where they are now. All the substances overlapped by the pink tint (and also including the cholinergic section -- i.e. nicotine) have some mood stabilizing properties. Most people who take anti-psychotics are also on SSRI's and some people who have mood disorders are put on antipsychotics rather than SSRI's. Psychotic behavior is more usually caused from excess dopamine rather than excess serotonin. And how about signing up for an account and adding some constructive criticism? --Thoric 4 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

How about improved rather than removed? This chart is to help the lay-person, not a medical student...
I don't think they will become much wiser, when even people that are not new to the subject are confused by the chart.
Is subtractive color mixing too complicated for you? There are 3 (+1) overlapping boxes, blue for stimulants, red for depressants, green for "halluncinogens" and pink for antipsychotics.
To me it looks like 4 partly-overlapping boxes, in which case the middle part of the image should be white and have nothing in it. But from what you tell I understand it is one blue/red box and overlapping green and pink boxes???
Most people who take anti-psychotics are also on SSRI's
Only when they also have depressive symptoms, which a lot of them have, not to treat psychosis or schizophrenia.
some people who have mood disorders are put on antipsychotics rather than SSRI's.
Interesting... do you have evidence for this or more information? I only know of antipsychotics being used as a temporary treatment for acute mania, but usually lithium is preferred over them.
Psychotic behavior is more usually caused from excess dopamine
This is only a hypothesis and has as far as I know never been proven so far. See Dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia
And how about signing up for an account
Hope you are happy now that I haved logged in... didn't know I had to log in whenever I post critisism. --WS 5 July 2005 14:15 (UTC)

Drug Chart

Yes, I am happy now that you logged in. The middle part of the chart is white... and it has cannabis in it because it sort of doesn't really fall into any of the categories directly... it's not a CNS depressant or a stimulant, yet for some people it causes relaxation, and for others a "high". It doesn't really cause typical "psychedelic" effects either, although can cause entheogenic experiences in very high doses, and has synergistic effects with hallucinogens. The anti-psychotic section is new, and I am not sure that it is correct, although I think it's not too far off. As I stated further back, I hope to improve on it. Please take a look at my original graphical chart from which I based the color square table diagram, as it is a little more clear (though you can see I've since moved things around a wee bit). --Thoric 5 July 2005 17:25 (UTC)

Muscarine

This is just a small point regarding the chart. I noticed that Muscarine is on there, and Muscarine exerts no effect on the CNS - if I'm not mistaken, that means it isn't classified as a Psychoactive drug. I won't remove it because I'm not certain, but maybe anyone who is more versed in Pharmacology can adjust the chart? Thanks --Panentheon 26 August 2005 17:26 (UTC)

I've seen muscarine classified as a (CNS) stimulant in some places, but maybe those were misclassifications? Some references state that it has difficulty passing through the blood-brain barrier. As there are muscarinic receptors in the brain, muscarine would have an effect if some did pass through the blood-brain barrier. Maybe there is another chemical substance that would better replace muscarine in the chart? --Thoric 17:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

DXM

I noticed someone (67.169.38.235) added DXM to the psychedelic side. While some consider DXM to be a "psychedelic", it still belongs in the dissociative section. Please read both the psychedelic drug and dissociative drug pages for clarification to how substances under both categories can have similar effects. --Thoric 06:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis

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 01:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I could left-align it so it will be closer to the psychedelics section... but I'm really not sure where it belongs most. I did recently lower it down deeper into the "hallucinogens" section such that it was in line with MDMA. Maybe it should be deeper down? More to the left? Any suggestions? --Thoric 03:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps giving it a section title will make it less stark? "Multiple Effects" in the same style as the other 4 major categories? Artistically it's ugly less desireable and logically it's superfluous, but it makes diagram less "centered" on cannabis, which reduces the visual impact. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hashish and cannabis sativa aren't strong but certainly are psychedelics. If you included MDMA into this cathegory than cannabis should also be included. Besides, drug culture recognises it as psychedelic. P.S. LSD is far more powerful than psilocybin - in terms of how much micrograms you need to produce psychedelic effects. Sorry for bad English ;) Kras; 9:18, 17 December 2005 (GMT+1)

It's on the cusp at the moment, but I could move it in a little deeper. Chemically MDMA is a much closer relative to the psychedelics than THC. As for LSD and psilocybin, their placement is such because LSD is a closer relative to mescaline than psilocybin is, and psilocybin is a closer relative to DMT than LSD is. --Thoric 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Psychoactive Drugs, Generally

I'd like to adress something I've noticed on nearly all pages that concern psychoactive substances. There seems to be a lot of scientific talk on these pages, and this page is the worst. I find this problematic because the scientific approach is only one viewpoint. Take a look at a website like Erowid.org, and you'll notice a very nice combination of both a scientific view and a personal/spiritual view of these peculiar substances. Presenting readers with just one side of the story is pretty unfair, I'd think, as the other side might be even more interesting for some readers or researchers that come here to find information. Things you could include would be the cultural and religious use of some of these substances, as well as the way they have been adopted by modern culture. Another downside of the scientific approach lays in the fact that DMT is mentioned as a psychoactive substance, but the Amazonian Ayahuasca, a combination of Banisteriopsis Caapi and Psychotria Viridus, (which is the chemical combination of DMT and Harmine/Harmaline, which is a MAO-inhibitor) is not mentioned anywhere on the page. Still, this brew is in itself a psychoactive substance, and worth mentioning: there is actually already a wikipedia page for it. I can speak all I like but I believe this story will be enough for you to get my point. Let's summarize it all by asking the person that made this whole chart (which I think can be a good idea, but is pretty chaotic in itself) if he ever used any of the substances he is talking about so much, or if he just read about them in medical/chemical literature? - Roald Blijleven (I apologize sincerely for not having a user and questioning your integrity anyway...and for maybe not knowing exactly how to work with the Wiki yet) - 25-11-'05

First of all, you are welcome to contribute to this and other articles. To address your concern, most pages end up a little dry (like all encyclopedias) as they tend to contain the agreed upon consensus between opposing views. This particular page is somewhat new and a work in progress, although it isn't meant to discuss the individual drugs mentioned as so much as to be a sort of index page directing you to specific pages about these drugs.

As for spiritual aspects, the entheogen page is the page you are looking for. I guess this article could have a direct reference there, but since the entheogens are primarily those in the "hallucinogen" (psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants) category, it wasn't clear if it made sense to directly associate the two.

I created the chart, and I've tried at least 17 or 18 of the substances listed on it. My preference is for the psychedelics, and have definitely had spiritual experiences. In fact, they inspired me to create this chart (the original graphical one linked to from this talk page) to go along with a book on psychoactive drugs I am working on. --Thoric 16:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Drug names on chart

I noticed that people have been replacing the drug names on the chart with the proper generic names, but wouldn't it be best to use the most recognized names for the drugs? --Thoric 21:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, those names were the ones used in the United States for the products, elsewhere in the world they are called differently. They are also called different names in the U.S. for different purposes (bupropion as Zyban for smoking cessation, Wellbutrin as an antidepressant). Wikipedia policy is to use the INN names for all drugs anyway, so I think the changes are appropriate. Tmrobertson 18:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Nitrous oxide

Gustavb -- nitrous oxide was already in the dissociative section -- the whole right side of the bottom (hallucinogen) section is dissociative. PCP, Ketamine and DXM were grouped together because they have the same method of action. N2O has a different method of action. I'm not sure all four should be grouped. --Thoric 17:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, but it isn't very clear, and it is not consistent throughout the table. For example, nicotine is not a SSRI, but if the upper middle column would be read in the same as the lower right, one could get that impression. Maybe the heading should be emphasized even more to show that it spans all the content in the column. I will revert my changes, however, as you're right about the method of action. --Gustavb 20:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's not too obvious (hence why it is stated in the legend). I can maybe make it more clear by adjusting the colors some more. BTW, nicotine synergistically enhances the action of SSRIs ;) --Thoric 21:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice the legend, it makes it much clearer. Regarding nictoine and SSRIs, you learn something new every day :) --Gustavb 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rearranging

I've adjusted the chart a little... let me know if you think it makes more sense. Ideally I'd like similar drugs to be as close together as possible. --Thoric 22:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement, especially the ordering by potency in the dissociatives group and that you added inhalants. I still have some concerns regardning consistency and scope (i.e. what should be included and what shouldn't).

In the table some drugs are named as plants, some as their most active alkaloid, and others as both. For example "Cannabis" vs. THC (or cannabinoids), "Khat" vs. cathinone and cathine, but on the other hand, "Salvinorin" vs. Salvia divinorum, "Nicotine" vs Tobacco. (Both "Opium" and two of its most active alkaloids, "Morphine" and "Codeine", are listed.) -- I'm not stating that it's wrong, I just would like to know what the naming and inclusion policy is.

This is partly due to changes that were made by another person from the common North American names for the drugs to the proper generic chemical names. My intention was to use the most commonly known names for the drugs, but unfortunately that differs from place to place. So yes, Khat should be cathinone, and "Cannabis" should be THC. Maybe we should make two (or three) versions of the chart, and links between them?

Regarding the scope, I think we should aim for including as many different kind of psychoactives (in terms of action and usage) as possible in each group, this without listing too similiar substances, and without missing the most common ones. To give an example, some opiod with long duration (e.g. methadone) could be listed under "Narcotic Analgesics", as the others have relative short duration. And what about Tricyclic antidepressant and MAOIs in the stimulants' group?

The point of the chart is to give some visual insight to the average layperson as to how commonly known drugs relate to other commonly known drugs. For this reason we should try to ensure that priority is given to the most commonly known drugs. Certainly methadone should be added, and anything relevant should be added (within reason)

The more I think about this table, the harder it seems to make it perfect :) --Gustavb 03:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately a table is much harder to work with than a set of circles (see my original chart graphic linked above) --Thoric 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nicotine

It seems Nicotine is not under the sections ANTIPSYCHOTICS, STIMULANTS, DEPRESSANTS, or HALLUCINOGENS? What is Nicotine classified as? Or is it in a group of its own? Are Cholinergics in a group of their own?

Nictotine is currently in the "Cholinergics" subsection of the overlapping of the Stimulants and Depressants sections. The magenta (purple) section is the overlap of the blue (stimlants) section and the red (depressants) section. It exhibits qualities of both. If you google: nicotine depressant (no quotes), you will find many reference to it exhibiting both qualities. [1] [2] [3] [4] -- basically nicotine is a stimulant in small quantities, and a depressant in larger quantities. Actually, many depressants exhibit this behavior (stimulant effects in low doses). Nicotine is also synergistic with the antipsychotics, and have some minor antipsychotic effects of its own. --Thoric 01:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

New chart (in progress)

I've finally figured out how to make the chart properly using a graphic and overlaying the links on top with absolute positioning. Please check out my new chart so far, and let me know if you think it is far superior to the current one. Yes, I know it's not done yet, but it's a lot of work to position everything ;) --Thoric 04:21, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the new one, the circle going through cannabis eliminates my concern from above. You might want to tone back the blue further from link blue, and perhaps move psychomotor stimulants down so that the words aren't split between a white and blue background. Circles make for a much better Venn diagram than squares. Great job! -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Done and done. (Plus some other rearranging). How does it look? :) --Thoric 02:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's perfect! I especially like what you did with sympathomimetic amines...who needs circles when you can use a cam? -- stillnotelf has a talk page 04:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) It took me a couple days to figure out what to do about the sympathomimetic amines... I tried various elipses and eventually made a sort of egg shape ;) --Thoric 05:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cannabis

So is Cannabis classified as a Hallucinogens or in a class of is it in a class of its because it can produce the effects of Stimulants, Depressants, and Hallucinogents? Is more closer to one than others?--Zachorious 05:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Legally it is classified as a hallucinogen, and in the chart it is located in the middle, falling under all three classes, meaning that yes, it is a hallucinogen, but also includes the properties of both stimulants and depressants. --Thoric 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

THC is a hallucinogen - auditory and visual hallucinations are a common trend in many users over many different levels of doses. Paranoia stems from seeing or hearing people/events that don't really exist as a threat. --Nutschig 12:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Said hallucinations are only documented to occur in very high doses of oral consumption, or sometimes in people who are particularly sensitive to the effects. The same could be said about nearly any drug that is not normally considered in any way, shape or form to be hallucinogenic in regular usage. The same could be said about nicotine, as for some people high doses of nicotine are visionary. Of course these nicotine doses are at very toxic levels. Anyone who claims to have experienced significant visual distortions from THC on par with those of classic psychedelics (i.e. LSD, psilocybin, mescaline) from smoking a joint is most certainly embellishing a great deal, or their joint was laced with PCP ;) --Thoric 14:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Psychotic Drugs

Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants do not belong in a chart or article lumped in with LSD, cocaine, etc. These drugs have little in common, especially as it relates to therapeutic value and addiction. Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants are not addictive or habit forming. There is an apparent attempt here to put every "drug" into a single article even if it has only a remote affect on brain activity or no therapeutic value. "Psychotropic" medication is a term commonly used by the medical field to describe legal and effective anti-psychotic drugs. It is not interchangable with "psycho-active." --24.55.228.56 17:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, they are in their own section. Second, some have very similar method of action. Third, anti-depressants and anti-psychotics can be habit forming. Forth, there are other drugs on this chart that are less habit forming than anti-depressants. Fifth, and most importantly, this page is of all common psychoactive drugs, hence the title of this article. The chart is a careful arrangement of all these common drugs and how they relate to each other. Your personal political views on which drugs have "therapeutic value" and which do not have no place here. For your information, drugs such as LSD and cocaine have a much longer and richer therapeutic history than all the antipsychotics and antidepressants combined. --Thoric 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Chart dispute

1-2-3-4 . . . The chart is nonsense and an example of original research that has no place in an encyclopedia. Thoric, you created the chart, so your interest in defending it is self-evident. Unless I see a compelling reason to keep an unsourced diagram, your creation will be removed from this article. You may then place it on your refrigerator and proudly show it to friends who visit you.--65.87.105.2 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what wiki says about original diagrams: Images that constitute original research . . . are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader.[5] Your diagram falls within this category and needs to be removed. Sooooorry.--65.87.105.2 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The image is not original research. It is a diagram that shows the established relationships of the drugs listed. If the author has created new classifications of drugs, that would be original research. --jackohare 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If the relationships are as well established as you indicate, there should be no problem with finding a legitimate diagram from an external source, like a peer reviewed scientific journal or pharmacy text book. An original diagram by Thoric has no place in a wikipedia article. Please re-read the wiki policy.[6] Much thanks!--65.87.105.2 22:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Er... that would most likely be a copyvio. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? --jackohare 00:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how the chart can be construed as original research any more than a table or other graphic illustration. Contibutors frequently create images, diagrams, etc. to illustrate wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials for example. It certainly doesn't reach the standard of a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Edgar181 23:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If you can't get permission for a copyrighted diagram and it is not fair use, then, you are correct, it would be a copyright violation. Legitimate scientific diagrams that don't violate copyright are difficult to come by. Good luck in searching for one. But if you can't get copyright permission, you just can't make up your own diagram with your own unsourced interpretations of the interelationships between drugs. That is called original research and it is not allowed in wikipedia. [7] P.S. Please show me a similar original image or diagram on wikipedia. --65.87.105.2 01:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW - The initial reaction to the drug chart on this discussion page was right on target. See above. The self-described med student/editor wrote, "I know you worked hard on the chart, but its format as a sort of ven diagram is really innapropriate. Grouping in that way with the overlaps is too subjective. Too many of the substances can be argued to be in more then the overlapping categories." He added, "Don't think this diagram will be that helpful. I am a medical student and the chart really confused me. Looks like partly overlapping boxes? If that is so, the middle part with the cholinergics wouldn't make sense. And looks like you place the SSRI's under the antipsychotics??? I think the variety of drugs involved is too complex to fit in such a diagram. I think this diagram should be removed." --65.87.105.2 01:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be your personal POV that the chart should be removed (and I have absolutely no idea why you have taken this so personally), but if other people believe the chart should stay, then you have to respect that decision. The groupings on the chart are based on scientific classification. I can cite references if you like, and cite published sources that I have in my possession as well. [8] [9] [10] [11]. --Thoric 21:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (P.S. The ealier criticism were to a square-box table rendition of the chart)

When it was partially overlapping boxes it was confusing. But that is not the case anymore. So you point to outdated criticism. TimL 17:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The drug classifications the original chart started with were based on those from Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition), William A. McKim, Prentice Hall; 5th edition (July 9, 2002), (Paperback; 400 pages), ISBN 0130481181. I own the 4th edition as well as the 5th edition. I'll have to get back to you on exact page numbers, but a quick flip through the index will show the common pharmacological groupings which are also links on the chart. The group headings on the chart link to existing Wikipedia articles. --Thoric 22:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed those links and they absolutely do not show the interaractive groupings displayed in the chart. Show me a source that says SSRI's are depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics. Where on earth are you getting that from?! Just give me one legit source that says SSRIs belong in all three categories. I will be waiting.--65.87.105.2 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you do not understand the concept of subtractive mixing, nor combined effects. Anything in the chart which is situated in an overlapping color section is not necessarily under both sections (or all three), but instead belong to the section within which they are subheaded. The SSRI's are anti-depressants (and hence not depressants), and they are generally not stimulants. This is why they are located in the overlapping "no mans land" between stimulants and depressants. They are also not antipsychotics as they are not purely in the antipsychotics section either. They are SSRI's as labeled. Now, they can exhibit effects of all three of those categories. For people who are depressed, antidepressants will have a stimulating effect. SSRIs also can exhibit mood stablizing side effects. If you'd just care to do one iota of research of your own, you will find out that SSRI's such as paroxetine are prescribed for conditions such as anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. These are minor psychotic disorders, and antipsychotics such as quetiapine are also prescribed for anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. --Thoric 23:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You have 4 main shaded spheres labeled 1. depressants, 2. stimulants, 3. anti-psychotics, and 4. hallucinagens. You have placed SSRI's in a region where depressants, stimulants, and anti-psychotics overlap. Of course we both know that no textbook describes SSRI's in all 3 categories. So you now write that SSRI's show effects of all three categories. Who says? Where are you getting that? If this is so well known, why don't the editors of the SSRI article know this? BTW - I notice that you have placed cannabis in the center of your chart so that every other drug revolves around it. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. --65.87.105.2 23:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Three main shaded spheres (Depressants, Simulants and Hallucinogens) with a fourth elipse of antipsychotics. As for the SSRI effects, I described them above, and you only have to look as far as the Wikipedia articles I wiki-linked for you to see a list of those effects. The SSRI article clearly describes SSRIs being prescribed for minor psychotic disorders - "anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders".

Cannabis' primary constituent is THC, which is legally classified as a hallucinogen, but compared to drugs such as LSD and PCP, it barely qualifies. For some people it produces mild dissociation, for others mild stimulation, and for many, it is relaxing and sedating, yet it is not a CNS depressant, nor a CNS stimulant. It is placed in the ultimate "no mans land" in the center of the chart because it doesn't belong anywhere else. It may be ironic that it is both in the center of the chart, and is also the drug which receives the most political attention, but is certainly isn't my drug of choice. While I am anti-prohibitionist, I am not a cannabis user. Cannabidiol, the second major constituant of cannabis has recently been discovered to be an effective antipsychotic, and it is rightly located in the lower middle of the antipsychotics section. --Thoric 23:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) (Also -- stop dragging this argument into the voting discussion. I've moved the lengthy comments to the talk page of the voting section. The voting section is for voting. Your "strongly oppose" is already there, but if you want a big long discussion/argument, keep it to a TALK page, such as this one, or the one I provided for you there.)

As you know, items on the talk page page are not transferred to the main Featured picture candidates by the bot. You are attempting to censor dissenting opinions and prevent other voters from seeing the negative comments. Your motives are transparent. You are not fooling anyone.--65.87.105.2 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As you should know, the voting page is for voting, not for ranting. Rants are to be taken to talk pages. You are purposely cluttering up the voting page with your ranting. It has no place in that article whatsoever. The discussion belongs here. I didn't censor any votes or any of the negative comments within them. BTW, why do you refuse to sign in with an account? --Thoric 00:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• A lot of this controversy seems as though it could be alleviated with a few citations. What about linking to this site (for starters)? http://www.nida.nih.gov/DrugPages/DrugsofAbuse.html Semiconscious (talk · home) 21:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You are assuming that Thoric's diagram can be cited to some authority. The NIH chart is excellent and should be substituted for Thoric's creation. You will note that no anti-psychotics appear in the NIH chart. Also, at NIH, marijuana is listed under the "Cannabinoids" category, not under the Depressants, Hallucinogens, and Stimulants as it is here. Thoric apparently thinks that he knows more about cannabis than the NIH researchers. --24.55.228.56 22:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not a substitution. It is an ugly table -- a list, not a nice visual chart. Encyclopedia Britannica says that, "Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient of cannabis, or marijuana, obtained from the leaves and tops of the hemp plant (Cannabis sativa), is also sometimes classified as a hallucinogen", the CSA classifies marijuana as a hallucinogen [12]. So why does it not belong partly in the "hallucinogen" section? --Thoric 22:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of you are mininterpreting the intentions of the NIDA chart link. That is intending only as a beginning; an example of a source one should use to cite the data contained within the chart. I think Thoric's chart has much merit, however his sources are not well-documented. Cannabis is indeed classified as a stimulant (increases heart rate), depressant (causes lethargy), and even as a hallucinogen (usually at higher doses) by most researchers of drugs of abuse. The NIDA distinction of "cannabinoid" refers only to the source of the drug (as marijuana and hashish are both derived from the cannibis plant). The point of Thoric's chart seems to be more of a classification by effect; given the topic of the article (psychoactive effects of drugs on the human), this layout seems entirely appropriate. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You may also wish to reference erowid.org. Believe it or not, they're a well-respected, accurate resource for drug information. Check out this page here [13]. Semiconscious (talk · home) 00:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank-you for your support. I am certainly learning the importance of keeping track of references. One can never assume that what believes to be common knowledge will not be heartily disputed ;) --Thoric 18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote for chart as a featured picture

The psychoactive drug chart was nominated as a featured picture candidate. Please check out Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/DrugChart and place your vote :) --Thoric 18:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I already voted to Strongly Oppose. It is an example of subjective original research that is prohibited from wiki articles. And shame on you for trying to toot your own horn rather than create an encyclopedic article.--65.87.105.2 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't self-nominate, I was only defending the chart, which you for some strange reason seem intent on vandalising. I have spent a great deal of time researching the subject from respectable published researchers, and have also consulted a few experts to make sure that anything wasn't way off base and ensure that the categorization was correct based on established scientific knowledge. None of the placements on the chart are subjective. --Thoric 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

- and your vote was deleted because you weren't logged in. I nominated it because I have long sought to wrap my head around the relationships between the various psychoactive drugs, there are so many, and they deserve a good chart. This is it. TimL 17:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

More Evidence that the Drug Chart is prohibited subjective original research

If the drug chart is "correct based on established scientific knowledge," why is it constantly changing? The original chart did not include anti-psychotics as related to the 3 other categories. [[14]]. Is the current chart scientific, but not the previous charts? Will the current chart be dismissed as unscientific when a new one comes out? If the relationships are as clear and as widely accepted as Thoric claims, the chart should not be constantly changing. The most recent chart legend states "Pink hue: The so called 'antipsychotics'. A new and controversial addition to the chart." Why is it controversial? Are there experts that would never include them in your chart? (I can answer that one: YES.) The chart is created from the mind of Thoric and it represents original research which is prohibited in wikipedia.[15] --24.55.228.56 20:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not constantly changing. If you look at the original chart I created in 2003 after reading W. McKim's book, and compare it to the current chart almost three years later, you will see that it has changed very little. The major changes only involve additions, colorization and minor adjustments. --Thoric 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm affraid I share 24's worries about the chart. Original research applies to images. Thoric suggests it is a synthesis of papers he has read. That is original research, isn't it? JFW | T@lk 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It would be OR if he'd written the papers. Everything cited on Wikipedia is a "synthesis of papers" we have read, amongst other sources. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 05:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Until the relevant sources are cited, this is indeed in violation of WP:CITE, and if sources are not provided despite repeated requests one starts wondering if it is not original research. Your analogy is strange: everything cited on Wikipedia has a source by definition, which cannot be said about Thoric's interesting but fairly speculative drug chart. JFW | T@lk 16:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The headings and groupings are pharmacological. I have cited some sources if you'd care to read the rest of the talk page, as I said above The drug classifications the original chart started with were based on those from Drugs and Behavior: An Introduction to Behavioral Pharmacology (5th Edition), William A. McKim, Prentice Hall; 5th edition (July 9, 2002), (Paperback; 400 pages), ISBN 0130481181. This book is used as a text in a University level course. This chart represents the pharmacological heirarchy of drug classification. As for the NOR comment, did you even read the article you are referencing? Specifically with respect to original images? "Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from the NOR policy. Wikipedia editors have always been encouraged to take photos or draw pictures." Not that the chart is original research, but even if it were considered such, it lies in a grey area. --Thoric 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed you added the McKim reference. Does that work actually have one of those Venn diagrams? Or does it simply rely on its classification? JFW | T@lk 23:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The chart relies on the classifications in that work, which are standard pharmaceutical classifications. That does not mean that a Venn diagram based on standard classifications breaks the NOR policy. --Thoric 14:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As for images being NOR, a photo or drawing is artwork. This, however, is a diagram containing hard data. I fail to see how it can be exempt from NOR. JFW | T@lk 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman's edit summary

I removed the drug chart (twice actually) and was reverted by Ombudsman both times. The second time Ombudsman wrote this interesting edit summary[16]:

rv: technical concerns noted; however, your objective apparently is to suppress entirely valid content, a telling hallmark of Western medicine's barbaric legacy toward natural healing practices

This chart has absolutely nothing to do with "natural healing practices". I've clashed with this user before, which may explain why he feels it necessary to betray his bias against me, namely that I'm a barbarian. I take strong exception at this tone, and will report further inflammatory edit summaries at WP:AN/I with a request for sanctions. JFW | T@lk 16:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

You've also clashed with me. Maybe your attacks against the chart reveal you bias against me? You are siding with an anonymous user against several other editors. This chart has been in place for over eight months. I'm sure you have looked at it within that time, and now feel confident to remove it in its entirety rather than discuss it properly on the talk page. --Thoric 19:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I have not clashed with you directly, at least not for a long time. I actually expressed my doubts about the chart months ago, but forgive me for not finding the correct diff here and now. I am fully allowed to side with an anonymous user and to make a removal when I feel there are significant issues being raised that need to be addressed before this chart can be reinserted. The only bias I have against you is that you have inserted a nice piece of work that completely lacks the sources it was based on. It is a simple request, and if you take your own work seriously it should be a piece of cake for you to provide the source material in question. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I did put the reference to my primary source for the original version of the chart, and will have to add some more references to additional sources for futher additions and corrections, but for the most part I really don't see the classifications as all that controversial, and your neuroscientist friend didn't point out anything particularly out of whack either. I really don't think the chart should be removed until I provide a list of a dozen different resources, but I will get as many as possible for you as soon as possible. --Thoric 05:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

With the sources in place I don't see why it should be removed. JFW | T@lk 09:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the classifications are also in line with those found in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drugs#Templates. --Thoric 14:43, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from any hostile tone, it is interesting that Ombudsman views the chart as bucking "Western medicine" and promoting "natural healing practices." After all, when confronted with criticism, Thoric, the creator of the diagram, has claimed it is a neutral diagram that is "correct based on established scientific knowledge." But even Thoric notes that the anti-psychotic part is "controversial," the chart is constantly changing and has been altered substantially since the first version, and now an editor says he supports it because it demonstrates an extreme POV. When I saw "natural healing practices," it certainly made me wonder again about cannabis being in the center of the chart so that every other drug revolves around it. The chart is original research POV and needs to go.--24.55.228.56 17:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The anti-psychotic part is controversial, mainly because there are a large number of doctors (esp. psychologists) who believe that anti-psychotics are poor medicine attempting to pharmacologically control disorders which have little to do with physical brain function, and all to do with psychological issues that can be fixed through therapy. It's also controvesial because people such as 24.55.228.56 don't like to see the "medications" they are on grouped along with what they consider to be "street drugs". --Thoric 18:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I think the natural healing/western medicine battle has roots with the fact that "western medicine" took folk medicine, extracted the active alkaloids and marketed them while calling the folk medicine bunk (from which they extracted the drugs don't forget). This chart helps make things clear, and those who like to pull the wool over your eyes don't like that sort of thing.

AND THE POV BEHIND THE DIAGRAM APPEARS! THANK YOU!! I rest my case, your honor.--24.55.228.56 19:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What POV? You're making less and less sense every day. Not taking your medication while on holiday? --Thoric 19:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that 24's response is not very helpful. Thoric, as I stated above: I will fully support the chart once the relevant sources are provided. I took the liberty of asking Semiconscious (talk · contribs), a neuroscientist and member of WikiProject Neuroscience, who agrees the content of the chart is correct in principle[17]. Ombudsman misrepresented my position as being anti-natural healing while my only real concern it whether it complies with WP:CITE and WP:NOR. I couldn't care less whether an alkaloid is from your garden shed or big pharma, as long as the categorisation can be backed up by serious research. JFW | T@lk 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The removal of good and neccessary content is the real issue here. Regarding Ombudsman's edit summary, that was probably too much commentary and opinion for an edit summary, but I certainly wouldn't call it a "personal attack." He simply said that JFF's action in removing the chart seemed to be reflect a viewpoint which he disagreed with. Now about the chart itself, I don't see how anyone could consider it original research. A "new synthesis" is only OR for opinions and analysis - not for facts. All in depth Wikipedia articles are a new synthesis of facts from different sources. And tables and charts are no different from prose in that regard - it's meerly a different presentation style. The chart does a great service to Wikipedia readers, and its removal was completely inappropriate. If you object to a specific listing on that chart then go ahead and raise that in talk and/or put a {{cite}} tag by it, but don't take down the whole thing! I can't see anything wrong with the chart, and apparently your expert friend agrees. And regarding the alleged lack of citations, I see several books listed at the bottom of the article which you can go to your local library and check to verify. Some web-references for the categorizations would be nice, but that's not required. At any rate, I certainly don't see any orginal research or lack of citation issues that would warrant the removal of such an integral part of the article. And perhaps Ombudsman editorialized a bit much in the edit summary for the revert, but that issue seems quite minor comapred to JFW's inappropriate removal of content. Blackcats 04:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, someone coming to Ombudsman's defense given that this user appears to be allergic to talk pages. But Ombudsman has showed his true colours a while ago, so I'm not really in need of explanations or justifications.

A removal for valid reasons is quickly reverted, while an offensive edit summary remains in the history. Several users had raised the problem of original research, and as you can see on my userpage I may remove uncited information if sources are not presented upon request. JFW | T@lk 09:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Quality of article and diagram

In its current form the diagram is highly misleading. It is in no way possible to arrange all psychoactive drugs in only three different dimensions. Every class of drugs has its very own and distinct effects and its very own mechanism of action. Chosing the current three "main qualities" of psychoactive drugs is indeed highly POV and disputable. Thoric clearly takes the arrangement too serious and tries to integrate too many different and unrelated classes into a way too simple scheme.

A simple version of the diagram could indeed be helpful as an overview and a quick entry into the complex field of different types of drugs. But the graphical appearance must not suggest more accuracy than the oversimplified scheme actually has.

Also the labeling of the main axes should be as general as possible and not identical to existing and distinct compound classes.

In its current form the diagram as well as the text of the article are not acceptable as a Wikipedia article and have to be improved and extended. Cacycle 11:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the simplification is an important issue with the chart. Psychoactive drugs can't simply be squeezed into three or four dimensions. Again, if the principles behind the chart can be traced to a source I don't see a problem (if that source is reputable enough). JFW | T@lk 13:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they can be, based upon the existing well defined classical drug hierarchies. A quick look at any drug classification scheme will list most psychoactives as either a stimulant, depressant, hallucinogen or antipsychotic. With few exceptions, most psychoactives can be plotted along two axis — a spectrum from stimulant to depressant, and a spectrum from hallucinogen to antipsychotic. Certainly this is a generalization, but that is the primary intention of this chart — to show the general relationships between common psychoactive drugs. The articles that are wiki-linked from the chart are supposed to contain the real detail. --Thoric 18:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

SSRIs

I have found a reference labeling antidepressants such as fluoxetine as stimulants (along with amphetamines, bupropion, cocaine, caffeine and nicotine). It's on page 110 of . ISBN 0306435624. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help); Unknown parameter |Author= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Chapter= ignored (|chapter= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Pages= ignored (|pages= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Title= ignored (|title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |Year= ignored (|year= suggested) (help). It is possible that SSRIs belong in the same section (but to the right of) the aminoketones (which means shifting the aminoketones slightly to the left, (and possibly the TCAs belong where the SSRIs are currently located, although they have anticholinergic effects, which means they wouldn't make sense being so near the cholinergics). Would this be more accurate? I really didn't think that the SSRIs were really stimulants (hence their current location). --Thoric 18:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Which drugs on the chart do people object to the classification of?...

I may have missed something, but it seems that for all the general complaining that I'm reading about the chart, nobody is actually naming specific drugs that they think are mis-classified. For example, is there someone here who thinks that morphine is not a narcotic and a depressant? Or that LSD is not a psychedelic hallucinogen which also has stimulant properties? Or that cocaine is not a stimulant that's a sympathomimetic amine that's a psychomotor stimulant? I'm not a pharmacist, so I don't have the same expertise as many certainly do, but as a lay person who's reasonably knowledgable about these things, everything in the chart seems accurate. If people have specific issues with it, then I think it would be a lot more productive for them to list specific drugs that they think are not properly classified. If there's just a general concern that the chart gives too simplified of an impression, then the chart can be modified to note that it's simply a basic overview. I'm thinking that most people will use the chart as just that - a basic overview of how various drugs fit into the different categories and sub-categories. Someone writing a masters thesis in advanced pharmacology is probably not gonna be looking to a Wikipedia diagram for the sort of highly-detailed information they need with all the subtelties discussed. Blackcats 20:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You are kidding right? I challenged the creator to show me a text that says SSRIs are anti-psychotics AND depressants AND stimulants. And not 3 texts that need to be synthesized. He couldn't do it Every textbook I have seen displays the classification of drugs in simple chart with horizontal and vertical boxes. There is a reason for that. They are not all interrelated, with most drugs sitting in multiple categories. If the creator wants his creation published here, he needs to first get it published in a peer reviewed journal. Once we see it accepted by the medical community, we can then cite it in wiki and it won't be original research. I will be waiting. --24.55.228.56 13:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You removed the chart again. I personally think that the sources the author has provided may not be sufficient to explain all categorisations, and that the system used in the chart may be too innovative to escape WP:NOR. Still, the problems are too minor to remove the chart completely, and I suggest you start a request for comments. JFW | T@lk 13:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Outside Comments

So I emailed a professor of pharmaceutical chemistry and colleague down at the University of Southern California about this chart. He took a look at it, and here is he email response:

Yes, I agree the chart looks OK. The groups more or less mirror the receptors that underlie the actions (which is good). 5-HT agonists (LSD, psilocyn) are separated from 5-HT reuptake inhibitors but they both activate the same receptors. From an effect point of view this separation is correct. LSD probably initiates its hallucinogenic action by activating 5-HT2a receptors. The SSRIs increase 5-HT in the synapse so many receptors are involved in the overall action.

The legend says that THC exhibits effects of all three sections. However, it should be noted that its action is mediated by a completely separate class of receptors.

That last comment regarding THC is (probably) referring to the fact that THC has an effect on cannabinoid receptors. If anything, I would argue that this chart should also include nicotine as well, which also works on its own unique, nicotinic receptors. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This chart does include nicotine grouped with Betel nut and muscarine. THC is fairly segregated, but I have no problem with the legend noting special distinction. --Thoric 22:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the main problem is the placement of SSRIs, other than that the chart seems quite appropriate, although simplified to it's limits. Can't really decide is there original research in it. Where on the chart would you place mood stabilizers like lithium carbonate, sodium valproate and lamotrigine, that are used to treat bipolar disorder? --85.76.249.83 17:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I had an idea of a cathegory for (mostly) serotonergic drugs, that would include drugs like SSRIs, l-tryptophan, 5-htp, trazodone and mdma. A bit controversial maybe, and might link ecstasy with legal drugs in minds of some. But worth consideration. --85.76.249.83 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, what are you proposing? --Thoric 22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

A professor of pharmaceutical chemistry has some some input for this article? Great! Hopefully he has written a book with a chart in it so we can cite to it. Unfortunately, the chart here is an amateur hour original creation that has no place in an encyclopedia.--24.55.228.56 00:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

A question from someone with no expertise whatsoever!

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this page, Wikipedia is enlightening as always. I have a question, and I have no doubt that the collected expertise of everyone here can help. I need to know why you think that something like cannabis is considered to be psychoactive, and something like an apple or a glass of water is not. Surely the consumption of, say, an apple has a temporary effect on brain state/function, and has an effect on mood, perception etc., even if this effect is negligible? Or is it qualitatively different? Any help in understanding this would be greatly appreciated!