Bluelight

Thread: Hallucinogens vs. Psychedelics

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40
  1. Collapse Details
    Hallucinogens vs. Psychedelics 
    #1
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    The improper usage of these terminologies has been bugging me, it seems that we are often prone to likening 'psychedelic' and 'hallucinogen' but they aren't the same. Maybe if we get used to terming these substances more accurately, we can more clearly give psychedelic drugs and their creators the respect they deserve.

    From top to bottom, here we go:

    5HT2a agonists are "psychedelic hallucinogens" (Psychedelics like LSD, Shrooms, 2C-b, DMT...)

    Serotonin releasers are "empathogenic-entactogenic hallucinogens" (MDMA, 6-APB, 4-FA, 4-MEC...)

    NDMA Antagonists are "dissociative hallucinogens" (DXM, MXE, PCP, Ketamine...)

    Less understood hallucinogens are "atypical hallucinogen" (Salvia...)

    Then there are "deleriant hallucinogens" (DPH, Jimson Weed, Deadly Nightshade, Amanitas...)

    As you can see, 'Hallucinogen' represent a very large and dangerous class of drugs, but 'Psychedelic' represents a very useful and potentially therapeutic class of drugs.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Drug Studies
    Jesusgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    4,474
    As far as I'm aware, MDMA, MDA, 6-APB, 5-APB, Methylone and other empathogens with hallucinogenic behaviour manifest this through 5-HT2A agonism like traditional psychedelics, just so you know. Though other than with some like MDA and 6-APB this is fairly minor.

    I'm not sure if 4-FA, 4-MEC etc are also hallucinogenic in this manner but if they are it's likely for the same reason, not due to serotonin release.

    It begs an interesting question, where do we draw the line when considering if a substance is primarily an empathogen or a psychedelic? Commonly it seems MDA/6-APB etc are treated just as empathogens not psychedelics, despite having psychedelic effects - but something like aMT on the other hand is treated primarily as a psychedelic, with additional empathogenic effects. I guess the simplest would be to define them as both but then where do you draw the line there, would you classify Methylone a psychedelic too?

    I know the vast majority of stimulants get hallucinogenic in overdoses/binges, because the flood of dopamine triggers temporary psychosis, and deliriant like visuals. Whether or not you could classify them as a hallucinogen for this reason though is dubious since almost any drug has some capacity to cause hallucinations if the dose is high enough.

    I'd also argue that Salvia falls under a sub-class of dissociatives, given the nature of the effects, particularly the disconnection from ones body.

    Regarding dissociatives you also have some interesting curiosities like Muscimol found in Amanitas, which can produce dissociative-like experiences - and seems to be responsible for the "good parts" of the Amanita experience (or for those entirely good experiences) - while Muscarine is responsible for the deliriant effects. What makes it interesting is that Muscimol, again, isn't an NMDA antagonist, but rather a GABA-A agonist - think benzodiazepines etc, although unlike benzodiazepines it binds to the same sites as GABA itself.

    It does suck that not everyone understands the terms correctly, sadly I feel in a way we might contribute to it a little here since really this forum is for discussing all hallucinogens and yet it's confusingly called "Psychedelic Drugs", it's a little late to change it now though.
    Last edited by Jesusgreen; 14-02-2013 at 02:37.

    (Psychedelic Drugs: Rules - Index) (Drug Studies: Rules - Guide for Researchers)
    Use the Search function. Report rule breaches with the button to the top right of a post.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Methylone acts as a mixed reuptake inhibitor/releasing agent of serotonin, which is enough to classify it as an "empathogenic-entactogenic hallucinogen."

    My idea was to make solid categorization based on pharmacological action, not on the effects experienced (although they should generally line up accordingly).

    But now that you mention 6APB, 4FA, and 4-MEC as not being serotonin releasers - perhaps these belong in the "atypical hallucinogen" category, however having experimented with all these, my gut instinct says that there must be a pharmacological way to categorize these as "empathogenic-entactogenic hallucinogens". Don't you agree? There must be something I am missing, because there is definitely a common ground between 4FA, 4MEC, 6APB, Methylone, and MDMA that does not exist in any of the other categories.

    I guess Salvia can fall under the dissociative, but again the subjective nature shouldn't determine the categorization, and thus i placed it in it's own category.

    Again with the stimulant, it's not about the effects of the drug as much as it's action. The ability to induce psychosis which leads to hallucinations doesn't mean it's a 'hallucinogen'. It's still a stimulant due to it's pharmacological action. And also, i put Amanita in there but i don't really know much about it and never tried it.

    So it seems that you have found exceptions to my rules, namely in the "psychedelic" / "empathogenic-entactogenic" subcategorization of 'hallucinogens'. There must be a way to do it accurately.
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Ex-Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In the lab
    Posts
    419
    The most accurate way to classify drugs is by their pharmacology and their effects, though it is important to note that some drugs have similar effects despite different pharmacology. With empathogen-entactogens, I'm not sure if we should call them either hallucinogens or psychedelics. As a side effect of being serotonin releasers, they are generally going to have some activity at the receptors responsible for psychedelic effects but this is not the primary action. So what do we say of drugs like mda or aMT? I would say that they are both empathogen-entactogens and psychedelics, but at what level of psychedelic effects do we draw the line? Mdma doesn't usually produce visual effects so maybe it should just be an empathogen-entactogen. What are we to say about 2c-b? It certainly has the effects of an empathogen-entactogen, but it is not a serotonin releaser. What about Dipt? Considered a psychedelic but doesn't produce visuals. In the end, we may find that there are no proper labels and that they are only general guidelines for convenience, with some labels being superior to others.

    "Hallucinogen" is a poor term in my opinion. "Hallucination has different meanings in the scientific literature and in common language. It's part of a scheme that attempts to classify drugs into one of 3 categories (with stimulants and sedatives) which is very wrongheaded and misleading.

    I think we would probably be better off if we had a separate forum or subforum for dissociatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crashing View Post
    But now that you mention 6APB, 4FA, and 4-MEC as not being serotonin releasers
    I'm pretty sure these are all either releasers, reuptake inhibitors, or both of serotonin.
    Last edited by xx001; 14-02-2013 at 03:04.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Yeah, i'm pretty sure that 6APB, 4MEC, etc etc are serotonin releasers also. But that's speculative at this point.

    Well, for categorization in my opinion "Hallucinogen" works quite well.. There is always going to by a pyramid matrix of definition...

    Splitting the term 'Drugs' into subcategories a few times just makes the definition more precise, so i don't see how that could be wrongheaded or misleading when in fact it is approaching accuracy to a higher degree.

    MDA is a serotonin releaser, so it has a specific category in the OP.

    Again, you can't use your experience to say, "MDA feels both a part of the 'psychedelic' and 'empathogenic' class," that's not an objective viewpoint. Pharmacological action, however, is.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Ex-Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In the lab
    Posts
    419
    I think we need to consider both pharmacology and subjective effects. Some drugs may have a certain pharmacological action but no effects that would be expected from that. The opposite is also true that some drugs produce effects despite not having an expected corresponding pharmacological action. Perhaps this is simply because the true profile of the compound and the associated receptors is not fully understood yet.

    Ideally, in the future, we will have a much better understanding of how these drugs work and a solely pharmacological classification system will be proper. Of course, the more we know, the more complicated the system will become. Not every drug user is going to be like David Nichols or James Kent, so we are going to need more general labels as well. For that, our current system does a decent job. We can describe an effect or name certain receptor(s) and say that the two are associated with each other. Some of the atypicals (salvia, amanitas) still need a bit of work but we are getting there. We are just doing the best we can with imperfect information at this point in time.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    I'm considering the large number of RC's right now, if we used subjective effects, then anything could be anything. Reports are off the walls, drastically different reports on the same batches of the same substance all the time. It's just way too unreliable. When you say 'we' are doing the best we can i'm not really sure who you're talkin about, people in general i suppose? I'm just trying to make a slight improvement. I mean, just visiting this site is confusing in itself if you aren't very knowledgable about the subject. It suggests that all hallucinogens are psychedelic, but it's the opposite. I'm not knocking anybody but I am passionate about spreading accurate awareness about drugs, specifically psychedelics.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Bluelight Crew Thorns Have Roses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Conceal, don't feel
    Posts
    5,338
    The old nomenclature debate, eh? I demur (plus, my thoughts are already on the record).
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Never Knows Best View Post
    The old nomenclature debate, eh? I demur (plus, my thoughts are already on the record).
    I'm on my first round, but there's not really much more i can say. Other than this forum is clearly the 'hallucinogen' forum.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    Ex-Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    In the lab
    Posts
    419
    Yeah. For classifications like the OP makes, description of subjective effects is only a general guideline.(enough to distinguish ketamine from mushrooms, for example) Pharmacology and the effects have to line up to some extent. Reports all over the place for the traditional drugs as well. Set, setting, personality, etc are all variables that are not easily accounted for. It also doesn't help that the effects are so difficult to describe. The effects of simple drugs like alcohol or cocaine can be explained pretty well, but for something like dmt, it's almost impossible to give a meaningful account of the experience.

    The current state of psychedelic science offers a lot of good information for those willing to do their homework. Unfortunately, the average drug user simply wants something that "will make me see stuff" or "be good for the club". The researchers and informed users are the ones "doing the best we can".
    Reply With Quote
     

  11. Collapse Details
     
    #11
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Yeah man. Unfortunately only like 1 or 2 people are interested in this topic, but it's this sort of conversation that perpetuates advancement.
    Reply With Quote
     

  12. Collapse Details
     
    #12
    Bluelighter 2002Tii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    A glass of water longing for The Ocean
    Posts
    325
    I still think the only group listed that deserves the title of "hallucinogen" are the deleriants.
    Reply With Quote
     

  13. Collapse Details
     
    #13
    Bluelighter johannes kreisler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    central europe
    Posts
    532
    @crashing&shulgin: are you 2 aware that you are touching a few basic problems with this topic; have a look at this:

    "Perhaps this is simply because the true profile of the compound and the associated receptors is not fully understood yet.

    Ideally, in the future, we will have a much better understanding of how these drugs work and a solely pharmacological classification system will be proper. Of course, the more we know, the more complicated the system will become."

    first you are touching the mind/matter-problem. this goes for every psychoactive substance. but with psychedelics the problem gets a little more pronounced. I honestly doubt that it will ever be possible to create a pharmacological classification system for psychedelics. it simply does not work that way. not only because of set/setting but because you are touching the border of matter&mind and there's a fine line at which a strictly materialist view doesn't get you any further any more - same goes for idealist on the other side of the spectrum.
    then you should mind that language and it's codes need to be precise enough and broad enough. a "specific pharmacological profile for a single drug" or even "6-APB" will be too precise to be understood by a significant amount of people and/or there's not enough knowledge to be acquired at this point, simply because it's too specific. a classification of uppers/downers/trippers is obviously too broad but will be "understood" by many. get the point? (again: there's a fine line..)

    and btw: DMT is just as simple or just as complex as ethanol. when you say: "The effects of simple drugs like alcohol or cocaine can be explained pretty well, but for something like dmt, it's almost impossible to give a meaningful account of the experience." you see alc/coke from the "matter" (pharmacology) point of view and DMT from the "mind" (philosophy/psychology) point of view. interesting. . you can broaden you viewpoint even further by taking into account: history, culture, sociology, health, economy (........) and "simple" things get complex/complicated really fast...


    ^no offense guys (I often sound harsh in english as it isn't my first language), but you should be aware that you're dealing with a few fundamental problems here.
    Reply With Quote
     

  14. Collapse Details
     
    #14
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    If the OP just simply doesn't make sense to you ^ then i don't really know what more to say. 'Hallucinogen' is already currently defined as 'a general group of pharmacological agents that can be divided into three broad categories: psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants.' I was just proposing adding two more subcategories to that (empathogen-entactogen, and atypical), so that there is a noted difference between drugs similar to MDMA, and drugs similar to LSD. But i guess you are arguing that there isn't a big enough difference... well, sure.. i guess not

    And with DMT, i've never really heard of a DMT experience that didn't sound unmistakably like a DMT experience. It's a 5HT agonist, the effects line up accordingly and is such a Psychedelic hallucinogen. That's already accepted.
    Reply With Quote
     

  15. Collapse Details
     
    #15
    Bluelighter specialspack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashing View Post
    If the OP just simply doesn't make sense to you ^ then i don't really know what more to say. 'Hallucinogen' is already currently defined as 'a general group of pharmacological agents that can be divided into three broad categories: psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants.'
    Umm.. defined by whom? Wikipedia, I assume, since that's a straight quote from it. If you're going to suggest some sort of systematic classification, perhaps some scholarly references would be a good start.. rather than a random wikipedia contributor?

    In fact, wikipedia goes on to reference Glennon quoting Hollister, who's definition does not mention pharmacology at all - the definition is purely effect based.

    it's this sort of conversation that perpetuates advancement.
    Have to disagree. These are simply semantic games, driven by a desire to push substances into artificial categories. How do they "advance" anything? If one is interested in a systematic, pharmacologically based classification system - then stick to the pharmacology.

    Who even uses the term "hallucinogen" anymore? Pretty sure it isn't in common currency on this forum (although I don't spend much time here these days, so I could be wrong..). It only really crops up in literature written by researchers of a more conservative bent, although Nichols persists in using it - with some serious qualifications, and admits in his review that by "hallucinogens" he really only means 5HT2A agonist psychedelics. Which seems daft when he's just explained how the term is a total misnomer. Wikipedia goes on further to say:

    In this article, they are classified as psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants, preferably entirely to the exclusion of the inaccurate word hallucinogen, but the reader is well advised to consider that this particular classification is not universally accepted.
    The serotonin releaser drugs just end up in this forum as they don't really have anywhere else to go, and tend to be closer to the psychedelics than anything else. Although there would certainly be a case to be made that cathinones and APB derivatives would be equally at home in the ecstasy or other drugs forums.
    Reply With Quote
     

  16. Collapse Details
     
    #16
    Bluelighter RobotRipping's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    NS, Canada
    Posts
    3,991
    to put it simply, what happens when you take LSD/mushrooms/5-hta2 agonists? do you hallucinate things that aren't there? or do you see alterations of things that are already there? That's all there is to it. Psychedelics provide visuals that are alterations of reality, like our sensory inputs are distorted and sometimes mix in our brain while under their influence. Hallucinogens should strictly refer to drugs that make you see things that aren't there. For example, datura, or DPH.

    It's not so simple i guess because on DMT/salvia you'll see things that aren't in reality but it's different, you aren't really hallucinating, it's more like a dream state.

    as for stimulants like 4-mec-emc-mmc i'd classify them strictly as stimulants. mda/6-apb as entactogens or empathogens.

    basically i agree with the above. There are psychs, dissociatives and deleriants. Hallucinogens is a stupid fucking term, usually used by people who don't use psychedelics or who are new to them. Probably because they think you see white rabbits and shit while tripping; you don't.

    IMO pharmacology isn't necessary for classifying these substances, we can classify them based on their effects. At least that is the most simple straight forward approach, not all convoluted and confusing.
    Reply With Quote
     

  17. Collapse Details
     
    #17
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    What definition do you want? Wikipedia is quickly becoming an educational standard, but we can try Merriam Webster Encyclopedia?

    Hallucinogen:
    Substance that produces psychological effects normally associated only with dreams, schizophrenia, or religious visions. It produces changes in perception (ranging from distortions in what is sensed to perceptions of objects where there are none), thought, and feeling. Those that have aroused the most controversy include Ecstasy, LSD, mescaline, psilocybin (from certain mushrooms), and bufotenine (from the skin of toads); some would add marijuana. The mode of action is still not clear; serotonin, epinephrine, or other neurotransmitters may be affected.

    It's a defined term.. No matter what source, it's the same thing that's the point.

    Who uses the term? Medical professionals...

    n this article, they are classified as psychedelics, dissociatives, and deliriants, preferably entirely to the exclusion of the inaccurate word hallucinogen, but the reader is well advised to consider that this particular classification is not universally accepted.

    Right, it's not univerally accepted because it doesn't totally make sense, thus trying to make adjustments.

    Serotonin releaser drugs sometimes end up here, sometimes in the ecstasy section, that's why an empathogen-entactogen sub category makes sense to me. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or it really doesn't make sense to you? Have you tried 6APB and read up on its action? What about cathionones? You think they are equally psychedelic as entactogenic?
    Reply With Quote
     

  18. Collapse Details
     
    #18
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by RobotRipping View Post

    as for stimulants like 4-mec-emc-mmc i'd classify them strictly as stimulants. mda/6-apb as entactogens or empathogens.


    IMO pharmacology isn't necessary for classifying these substances, we can classify them based on their effects. At least that is the most simple straight forward approach, not all convoluted and confusing.
    You disproved your point in your own post, that is you would classify 4MEC as a stimulant for example, therefore subjective effects lead to a problem with classification, because I would classify them as empathogen-entactogens. You see the problem? However, there is in fact a more objective categorization for them, a tie breaker so to speak, that is pharmacology.

    How can something, that is more accurate, be increasingly convoluted? Despite not fully understanding pharamcology, it's certainly way more accurate than opinions.
    Reply With Quote
     

  19. Collapse Details
     
    #19
    Bluelighter specialspack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Crashing View Post
    What definition do you want? Wikipedia is quickly becoming an educational standard, but we can try Merriam Webster Encyclopedia?
    I'd like a definition by respected scientists who work within the field. I've already mentioned two from Glennon and Nichols. I don't think Merriam Webster is particularly helpful, precisely because it's putting forward an old, outdated term that doesn't really have many useful applications.

    Right, it's not univerally accepted because it doesn't totally make sense, thus trying to make adjustments.
    I would respectfully submit that the term has outlived its usefulness; it causes only confusion and should be abandoned.

    Serotonin releaser drugs sometimes end up here, sometimes in the ecstasy section, that's why an empathogen-entactogen sub category makes sense to me. Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or it really doesn't make sense to you? Have you tried 6APB and read up on its action? What about cathionones? You think they are equally psychedelic as entactogenic?
    Sure, if the term "empathogen-entactogen" makes sense, then use it, but it is clearly a loaded subjective term. As demonstrated by:

    You disproved your point in your own post, that is you would classify 4MEC as a stimulant for example, therefore subjective effects lead to a problem with classification, because I would classify them as empathogen-entactogens. However, there is in fact a more objective categorization for them, a tie breaker so to speak, that is pharmacology. Get it?
    If you want an objective, pharmacologically relevant classification, stick with the pharmacology. e.g. 6APB is a mixed serotonin releaser and 5HT2B and alpha 2c agonist... Don't use terms like "entactogen" which to most people indicate certain subjective effects, and people would draw the lines differently. The only use for terms like that is to bring in some subjective element, as many people have mentioned in this thread.

    And finally, even if you do use the term "entactogen", why qualify it with "hallucinogen"? The term is a complete misnomer.

    PS
    Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing
    Duh, what do you think the internet is for?
    Reply With Quote
     

  20. Collapse Details
     
    #20
    Moderator
    Psychedelic Drugs
    Wiki
    Solipsis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,730
    On the one hand: yes it does bug me when the media are partial to imprecise words like hallucinogens. On the other hand: oh no not this again.
    Please start at the Beginners FAQ - Read the PD Rules and BLUA - Use the Psychedelic Index and/or the advanced search engine
    Reply With Quote
     

  21. Collapse Details
     
    #21
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Quote Originally Posted by specialspack View Post
    I'd like a definition by respected scientists who work within the field. I've already mentioned two from Glennon and Nichols. I don't think Merriam Webster is particularly helpful, precisely because it's putting forward an old, outdated term that doesn't really have many useful applications.


    I would respectfully submit that the term has outlived its usefulness; it causes only confusion and should be abandoned.


    Sure, if the term "empathogen-entactogen" makes sense, then use it, but it is clearly a loaded subjective term. As demonstrated by:


    If you want an objective, pharmacologically relevant classification, stick with the pharmacology. e.g. 6APB is a mixed serotonin releaser and 5HT2B and alpha 2c agonist... Don't use terms like "entactogen" which to most people indicate certain subjective effects, and people would draw the lines differently. The only use for terms like that is to bring in some subjective element, as many people have mentioned in this thread.

    And finally, even if you do use the term "entactogen", why qualify it with "hallucinogen"? The term is a complete misnomer.

    PS
    Duh, what do you think the internet is for?
    Really good point right there. Then again, when you say something as simple as '5ht2 agonist,' maybe about 2% of the population know what that means, and it still only serves the purpose of suggesting what type of effects we may receive from it. Oh well.
    Reply With Quote
     

  22. Collapse Details
     
    #22
    Bluelighter specialspack's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,826
    Quote Originally Posted by Solipsis View Post
    On the other hand: oh no not this again.
    Eh, sorry. I'm sure this is all covered elsewhere...
    Reply With Quote
     

  23. Collapse Details
     
    #23
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Close this
    Reply With Quote
     

  24. Collapse Details
     
    #24
    I've always thought the term hallucinogen was bullshit when applied to psychedelics. A hallucination is usually considered something you can't distuingish from reality - that's not what a psychedelic does. You are always aware that what you are seeing is the consequence of dropping acid.
    Reply With Quote
     

  25. Collapse Details
     
    #25
    Bluelighter
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NYC and Florida
    Posts
    1,681
    Yeah yeah.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •