• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

Hallucinogens vs. Psychedelics

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 I don't think Merriam Webster is particularly helpful, precisely because it's putting forward an old, outdated term that doesn't really have many useful applications.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? :D

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.
 
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.
 
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.

because those pharmacologists aren't often experienceing the drugs they are studying leading to improper classifications IMO and the whole term hallucinogen being applied to 5ht2a psychs.

yeah i see the faults in subjectively classifying drugs by effect but maybe a proper mix of objective and subjective can bring us to useful definitions and classes of drugs. It's stupid to lump hundreds of drugs into 3 simple categories anyway, that is the failing of post modernism right there.
 
But now that you mention 6APB, 4FA, and 4-MEC as not being serotonin releasers

I did not say that, I just said that 6-APB's psychedelic action is expected to come from its 5-HT2A agonism, just like with MDA etc, and that if 4-FA and 4-MEC display psychedelic effects it's also quite plausible it's from this. All three substances release serotonin.

Serotonin release on its own does not seem to produce any notable hallucinogenic effects.

What I meant to say when I was explaining how it's difficult to draw the line with substances is well, take aMT, MDA and Methylone as examples..

IIRC Methylone was found to oddly enough be a 5-HT2A agonist, even though we don't really tend to regard it as psychedelic in effects. MDA and aMT are also 5-HT2A agonists. All three have some effect on serotonin reuptake/release.

If all three are both empathogen-entactogens and psychedelics by pharmacological nature, where is it we draw the line in effects to decide which to label them, would you really call Methylone a psychedelic just because it has some mild affinity for 5-HT2A receptors? Would you call aMT an empathogen-entactogen even though it's action is still primarily psychedelic? Would we go as far as calling all of them both?

I didn't close this just in case the discussion were to go any further, as others might have a little more to add, but if we discussion is really dead we can.
 
Well, the thing about those examples not working totally (in my opinion) is that the action is not yet understood. I don't know where there's any conclusive evidence to methylone being an agonist or a reuptake inhibitor, or both. AMT is the real wrench in the gears here, as it completely defies the logic i have previously outlined. (Then again, i am getting the pharmacological action form wikipedia, so it's in the air all the same.)

I feel that there are so many different types of neural pathways, we may not even be close to understanding how these drugs affect us. I have tried to draw parallels, but, there are always exceptions and therefore we seem to be missing something big.
 
And 5-ht2a is only one of a number of receptors that are responsible for the effects of psychedelics. Fortunately, research into these drugs(and neuroscience in general) is starting to pick up so we should expect to have a much better understanding a decade from now. Until then, we are just kind of groping around trying to find some reasonable patterns that are informative but imperfect.
 
Well, the thing about those examples not working totally (in my opinion) is that the action is not yet understood. I don't know where there's any conclusive evidence to methylone being an agonist or a reuptake inhibitor, or both. AMT is the real wrench in the gears here, as it completely defies the logic i have previously outlined. (Then again, i am getting the pharmacological action form wikipedia, so it's in the air all the same.)

I feel that there are so many different types of neural pathways, we may not even be close to understanding how these drugs affect us. I have tried to draw parallels, but, there are always exceptions and therefore we seem to be missing something big.

Actually, regarding Methylone, check these out:

http://bps.conference-services.net/resources/344/3046/pdf/EPHAR2012_0583.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014299906013811
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014299999005385
 
Those are quality articles, JG. Thanks for posting that. I realize that I know nothing of how any of these chemicals work, because even two chemicals with very similar actions can feel completely different.
 
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.

Really good point.
 
That point is rather invalid with high doses. You're aware of your surroundings no matter what you take if the dose is such^ 8)

To me the general idea of psychedelics is to strive for a state of ego-loss, which if you'v ever experienced, leaves no room for recognizing your surroundings. I suppose you could argue that such a state is not a hallucination, but rather our waking reality is a hallucination. That is really stretching though, as most people would define such a state as a 'hallucination' or 'not real'.
 
^ I have found that even in the most extreme states of high dose altered reality and the obliteration of the normal ego state encountered on for example an NN-DMT shift where the world is completely replaced with another reality entirely I still hold on to a point of conscious reason where I am able to remind myself that I have in fact taken a compound that had induced the situation, even when the question "am I dead ?, have I really done it this time ?" comes up I was always able to say to myself "no no, calm down, you've smoked dmt or salvia or taken a massive dose of mushrooms etc". so I am always aware no matter how weird things get that what I am experiencing is a hallucination.
 
I don't see the importance of this topic, it's not like we are misunderstanding each other when we speak about the drugs in this forum. I think the definitions of "psychedelic", "hallucinogen", "dissociative" etc were pretty loose when they were coined, and thus they still are open to interpretation.

this is just nitpicky semantics imo.
 
I still think the only group listed that deserves the title of "hallucinogen" are the deleriants.

I'd agree, but I think the medical profession would disagree. But then again, if you look at what hallucinogen means, it roughly translates as hallucinatopn generating and hallucinations are perceptions of things that have no basis in consensual reality. Given that psychedelics such as mescaline, psilocybin and LSD create - sometimes very weird - visual, auditory and tactual alterations in perception of things that still have a basis in the reality that other people can see. If you're looking at a breathing brightly coloured wall that doesn't seem to stay the same in size, your sober neighbour may not experience it likewise but still sees a wall there. With hallucinations, you would be looking at a field and feeling you're inside a house and not realize this is because you've taken a substance.

Big difference, in my opinion.

I find this topic very interesting by the way, and although I generally refer to psychedelics as "psychedelics", I think the usage of this term is problematic, because it has so many references to 60s psychedelica, hippies and counterculture, which makes the general public (or the academic world, which I'm trying to get interested in studying psychedelics) feel uneasy. Entheogens (and I'm sorry for subtly derailing the topic) to me sound too new agey...

[edit] Nevermind me, didn't read the whole topic before replying. Seems that lotsa people discussed it already though...
 
Last edited:
I don't see the importance of this topic, it's not like we are misunderstanding each other when we speak about the drugs in this forum. I think the definitions of "psychedelic", "hallucinogen", "dissociative" etc were pretty loose when they were coined, and thus they still are open to interpretation.

this is just nitpicky semantics imo.

I had suggested it be closed, but it has since evolved.
 
Top