Almost none of the drugs you listed of are actually classified as being psychotomimetic. The exceptions are LSD and PCP. Chronic use of methamphetamine can cause symptoms that overlap with paranoid schizophrenia, but acute methamphetamine use is not psychotomimetic. Salvinorin and butorphanol may be listed as psychotomimetics by some authors, but that is really because "psychotomimetic" is sometimes used as a synonym for "hallucinogenic".
Psychotomimetic drugs are drugs that have a potential to cause psychotomimesis (psychosis mimicking effects). It is not synonymous with hallucinogen, rather hallucinogens are a subset of drugs within the super set of psychotomimetics. Hence, all hallucinogens—including psychedelics, dissociatives, deliriants, and some obscure others—are psychotomimetic as far as the bailiwicks of medicine, psychiatry, psychology, and the demesne of behavioral health, etc., maintain.
1.) Cannabis, especially infused into foodstuffs, is as psychotomimetic as one wants; simply eat enough of the laced edibles and you'll produce bona fide psychotomimesis.
2.) Alcohol in large quantities is patently psychotomimetic. I'm an inveterate souse; I know from experience. When one gets into liberally quaffing libations as if lemonade—you take a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes you, as some author someplace once indited—the product is tantamount to a brief psychotic episode.
3.) Methamphetamine: stimulant psychosis tout court.
4.) Nicotine is a psychotomimetic, but not in cigarette-sized quantities. Have you never smoked uncured tobacco?
5.) Atropine goes without saying.
6.) κOR agonists, such as Salvinorin A and butorphanol, are psychotomimetic.
But, you're entitled to your opinion...
You are entitled to your opinion but almost everyone else in the word, including many schizophrenia patients, believes that it is a real disorder. Psychiatrists certainly haven't made as much progress as they would like in understanding schizophrenia but you are wrong if you think the disorder doesn't exist.
I didn't say no disorder existed. Rather, I said schizophrenia and psychoses may not exist.
Your argument is equivalent to the following:
Person A has epilepsy. Person B is convinced person A is possessed by some evil spirit and tries to cure Person A by ridding him of the supposed spirit. Person C says that there is no evil spirit and therefore the therapy is all wrong for person A. Person B then argues for the existence of the evil spirit by pointing to Person A's obviously poor condition.
But person C never said nothing was wrong with person A ; rather he doesn't believe person B's assertion that person A is possessed.
I am to person C, as you are to B, and the psychotic is to A.
My belief is that the reason the accessible pharmacotherapies only treat some but not all symptoms of schizophrenia (only the positive symptoms respond to contemporary pharmacotherapies, whilst the negative symptoms are unaffected) is because the drugs were created and employed on erroneous notions and unrealistic hypotheses about what schizophrenia is and what abnormal neural, cognitive, structural, physiological, or chemical mechanisms are at play in the schizophrenic's brain that causes and maintains schizophrenia in the individual? We know it's genetic and epigenetic in origin. But we don't know what these genetic and epigenetic anomalies do, other than cause schizophrenia.
Until then, schizophrenia will be treated experimentally as it always has been, with no one knowing what the fuck they're supposed to do other than dole out the most expensive pharmaceuticals from the companies that pay the largest kickbacks.
