5 ms·

I think its a bit disingenuous to call the PCP analogs "hallucinogens" They're NMDA antagonists primarily, the same primary mechanism as ketamine. They're diss

I think its a bit disingenuous to call the PCP analogs "hallucinogens" They're NMDA antagonists primarily, the same primary mechanism as ketamine. They're dissociatives

giordano-bruno 5y ago
0des 5y ago
Its more akin to taking DXM than mushrooms or something more visual
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Yes, I'm aware. I would also not call dxm a hallucinogen. It only produces hallucinations at pretty high doses, the hallucinations are secondary to the dissociative state.
  - 0des 5y ago
    Hallucinogens is a category that encompasses more than just chemicals that produce visual and auditory aberrations.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      I personally think it's poor to classify something on an attribute that it only expresses a fraction of the time. Classifications should be made on primary attributes that are expressed the majority of the time, that helps with communicating about what's being classified. Calling something a hallucinogen, while true a portion of the time, gives people who are unfamiliar the impression that it produces hallucinations most of the time, which it does not.
      - lewispollard 5y ago
        I've never tried pcp or its analogues, but ketamine was a potent hallucinagen for me - at a high enough dose. I would generally agree that calling it (or an analogue of it with a similar profile) a (bespoke) hallucinagen in an article isn't very accurate though. I was fascinated by the hallucinations that ketamine induced in me, and sought them out, but they were actually quite unreliable to attain and seemed to require a very specific dose range and set/setting.
briHass 5y ago
That's a strange technicality to get hung up on. "Hallucinogens" are perhaps a broad class of psychotropic drugs, of which dissociative anesthetics are a part. A laptop is still a computer. From Wikipedia's definition: "A hallucinogen is a psychoactive agent that often or ordinarily causes hallucinations, perceptual anomalies, and other substantial subjective changes in thought, emotion, and consciousness that are not typically experienced to such degrees with other drug classifications." The traditional dissociatives definitely would classify as changing your thoughts and consciousness.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  >changing your thoughts and consciousness This is extremely broad, in that case cigarettes are hallucinogens. Nicotine is a psychoactive substance, it absolutely alters though patterns and consciousness. >often or ordinarily causes hallucinations, perceptual anomalies, and other substantial subjective changes in thought, emotion, and consciousness that are not typically experienced to such degrees with other drug classifications I think you left out an important part of the stated definition, this also says "and" rather than "or". I think that "dissociative" is a more accurate classification the the compounds' primary effects seen at the majority of doses. I mention in another comment in this thread why I think it is a poor classification, please refer to that message for my argument.

I think its a bit disingenuous to call the PCP analogs "hallucinogens" They're NMDA antagonists primarily, the same primary mechanism as ketamine. They're dissociatives

giordano-bruno 5y ago

0des 5y ago

Its more akin to taking DXM than mushrooms or something more visual

netizen-936824 5y ago
Yes, I'm aware. I would also not call dxm a hallucinogen. It only produces hallucinations at pretty high doses, the hallucinations are secondary to the dissociative state.
- 0des 5y ago
  Hallucinogens is a category that encompasses more than just chemicals that produce visual and auditory aberrations.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    I personally think it's poor to classify something on an attribute that it only expresses a fraction of the time. Classifications should be made on primary attributes that are expressed the majority of the time, that helps with communicating about what's being classified. Calling something a hallucinogen, while true a portion of the time, gives people who are unfamiliar the impression that it produces hallucinations most of the time, which it does not.
    - lewispollard 5y ago
      I've never tried pcp or its analogues, but ketamine was a potent hallucinagen for me - at a high enough dose. I would generally agree that calling it (or an analogue of it with a similar profile) a (bespoke) hallucinagen in an article isn't very accurate though. I was fascinated by the hallucinations that ketamine induced in me, and sought them out, but they were actually quite unreliable to attain and seemed to require a very specific dose range and set/setting.

briHass 5y ago

That's a strange technicality to get hung up on. "Hallucinogens" are perhaps a broad class of psychotropic drugs, of which dissociative anesthetics are a part. A laptop is still a computer. From Wikipedia's definition: "A hallucinogen is a psychoactive agent that often or ordinarily causes hallucinations, perceptual anomalies, and other substantial subjective changes in thought, emotion, and consciousness that are not typically experienced to such degrees with other drug classifications." The traditional dissociatives definitely would classify as changing your thoughts and consciousness.

netizen-936824 5y ago
>changing your thoughts and consciousness This is extremely broad, in that case cigarettes are hallucinogens. Nicotine is a psychoactive substance, it absolutely alters though patterns and consciousness. >often or ordinarily causes hallucinations, perceptual anomalies, and other substantial subjective changes in thought, emotion, and consciousness that are not typically experienced to such degrees with other drug classifications I think you left out an important part of the stated definition, this also says "and" rather than "or". I think that "dissociative" is a more accurate classification the the compounds' primary effects seen at the majority of doses. I mention in another comment in this thread why I think it is a poor classification, please refer to that message for my argument.