Talk:Purported legal highs

Should we knock all the "items" down a level (===) and put them in broad categories (real, partial, not at all)?  ħ uman  18:31, 7 March 2009 (EST)


 * Perhaps. They're all either "partial" or "not at all", I would think.  Secret Squirrel 18:38, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Sorry, "whipits" are real.  ħ uman  22:27, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * You has teh experience working as dishwasher and sneaking cases of whipped cream from teh cooler, then? Secret Squirrel 23:44, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * The ones listed here are. Is this article specifically just for "purported" legal highs which are really just junk, or should it also include some genuine ones like salvia?   18:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * I've added a very brief section on real legal highs, I think if we had a separate article on them it'd look like condoning it (which I don't think we should) but we don't do the subject justice by leaving them out.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 18:49, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Salvia divinorum is being made illegal in most jurisdictions because it really is hallucinogenic. That one maybe could have its own article (someday). Secret Squirrel 18:52, 7 March 2009 (EST)

fucking datura
A terrifying ordeal. Datura is horrid shit and would never have tried it if were not for my friend running out of speed. Anyone else had this shit? Ace McWickedRevolt 22:52, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * I dunno, but can you nice people write in complete fucking sentences so I don't have to edit every section of this thing? Running out of speed? That's a definite mistake.  ħ uman  22:57, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * George H.W. Bush didn't talk in complete sentences so why should I, huh? Secret Squirrel 23:51, 7 March 2009 (EST)
 * Sounds like a good enough reason to me...  ħ uman  00:16, 8 March 2009 (EST)
 * I've read extensively about it, and yes, it is horrid. I've been wanting to experiment with it, but I've yet to find someone who can responsibly baby sit me for, like, three days straight. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I boiled the root and drank the resulting bitter-tasting "tea", but didn't experience any effects. From what I've read, it seems I probably didn't boil it long enough. But that's just as well, because it's pretty dangerous. Landmartian (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If I ever have enough friends, and ones who are crazy enough to watch me, I'd try it. But then again, I have writer's block and would try anything to fix it. --PosthumanHeresy (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Woo?
Actually, many of these have real psychoactive effects, and there is no woo about it. They interact with the same receptors as "real drugs" in the brain, and the supposed "drug-like" effects are psychoactive. (What's the difference between drug-like and drug-ish?) And many of them will screw up your brain in continued and high enough doeses. Sterilewalkie-talkie 09:07, 8 March 2009 (EDT) ...And the statement, "Keep in mind that if any of these really did have the claimed druggy effects, somebody would have made them illegal already," is not true. One would think that drugs are made illegal based on logical criteria, but they really aren't. If so, nicotine would have been made illegal years ago and peyote would be legal. Sterilewalkie-talkie 09:17, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think the "woo" tag is referring to ones like banana skins or cola & aspirin, which are largely based on placebo effect. That "somebody would have made them illegal already" sentence needs to be taken out; it was written in when the article consisted mostly of useless "highs".  09:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually, we now have as many genuine legal highs in the article as purported ones. My suggestion is we move this to "legal highs", put the genuine ones first & the purported ones below them.   09:23, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * This has really become two articles now: real legal highs, and purported legal highs that are useless woo. (And a third group, the "yes they're psychoactive but so fucked up you don't want to bother", like nutmeg; I know nothing about datura but assume it goes in the same category, along with the likes of toluene, fly agaric mushrooms, etc). Secret Squirrel 09:55, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't think there's enough of a clear division to split into two articles, since it's all really one subject. Ordering it with the real legal highs first would make more sense to me.   10:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think we can remove toluene from the list, inhaling pretty much any organic solvent like that. They all screw with your brain and change the oxygen levels. We can probably trim off alcohol and "legal stimulants" because those aren't really the same, we're looking at things that are advertised as "legal highs" not drugs that are as common as alcohol, tobacco and caffine.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 10:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Solvent abuse should be mentioned if we're covering all forms of drug (which we pretty much now are, across various articles). "They all screw with your brain and change the oxygen levels" is plenty of reason why we should cover the subject.  It could be a separate article if we have enough to say about it.   11:02, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Perhaps this article should be reorganised into "dangerous", "powerful but mostly safe" and "mostly useless" sections.  11:16, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

The real problem is that most of these have not been studied enough to really know if the substances are dangerous. You can say they affect the brain, but if those changes cause permanent changes in brain chemistry isn't really known. Salvia is just now receiving moderate attention in the scientific community, for example, although at least one study claims that it causes brain damage. But it's not a real scientific consensus. Sterilewalkie-talkie 11:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I like how this article is evolving ;) I renamed the toluene section back to "model glue", I had made it "toluene" just because that was the stuff that did the job.  Whether we should have a separate section on other "inhalants" of the volatile organic variety (as opposed to NO2) I don't know.  In some ways this is a bit like the birth control article, and perhaps could be structured similarly - it goes from almost perfect to almost useless, perhaps this could be arranged by effectiveness and/or toxicity (I know, I'm repeating what others have said above).  Or, perhaps, it could be alphabetical in the two broad sections, with a number code or words on each one to rate "effectiveness" and "toxicity"?  ħ uman  20:43, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Mephedrone article
Lol, spot the stupid mistake(s) in the linked mephedrone article: "The drug’s chemical formula is one molecule different to ecstasy" 1) One molecule? I presume you mean one molecular group (a methyl group), in which case... 2) No it isn't. It's one methyl group different to methcathinone, which is not ecstasy. Dumbasses. 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that got an interesting laugh in the office too. Including one postgrad who said "surely it's also one molecule different to water?" 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is the Metro, so don't put your expectations too high. 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

some of these things are now illegal in the UK
Annoyingly, just after I became aware of them (or perhaps fortuanately). I'd make the relevant changes but I am in the midst of Mephadrone comedown.--AMassiveGay (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I-Dosing
Can that be moved into hoaxes? I thought this was just another case of kids IRL trolling the local news. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Dramamine is are a real legal high, dramamine is well known for causing hallucinations in high doses


 * See the FAQ & testimonials at the I-Doser site, plus the names chosen for these things. It's very obviously being marketed as a legal high.  (+ The I-Doser site is also clearly affiliated with this "legal bud" site).   18:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

hand sanitizer
and distilled hand sanitizer are now the new legal high. Not sure if that should go under "alcohol" or not. Fuck, what are teens thinking when they will drink a bottle of hand sanitizer cause they can't get beer? --Godot  03:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"Preferably with another person"?
Who says? Masturbation is, in many ways, arguably better. You can do it by yourself *or* with others, you can do it anytime you can go to the bathroom, and there's no negative side effects (like STD contraction, or children) possible. Pretty much the only thing it doesn't have is the stigma, which, in a way, is a kind of sexual repression that should be fought against, and is by many an authority on the subject (such as Betty Dodson, who, in her book, "Sex for One", said that the right answer to the question "When was your first time?" is your first memory of masturbation. Not your first time with someone else in the bed.  And I agree with her.  Similarly, Anton LaVey has stated in the pages of the Satanic Bible that it's better to have a perfect (or even physically impossible fantasy that you wish were possible; yeah, this is the Internet age, after all) fantasy that's fully fulfilling than a lacking one-night stand with some random person at the bar who you didn't care for.  Well, okay, he's not a sex psychologist, but a philosopher, but I agree with his philosophy)Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes children are a desired result rather than a negative side effect. But yeah, the rest of your point is valid. Landmartian (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Unintended consequences
Its been a few years since uk banned mephadrone. And now, since bout Feb last year, no one seems to be able get decent m. The stuff stockpiled run out? It was so popular amongst the gays, who have now turned to Tina, known to be very harmful, addictive, and you need those fucking stupid pipes and jet flame lighters. Unless you slam it. More expensive too. Its not gone all breaking bad nor likely to, but surely not good. So yeh, way to go, you fucking pig fucker AMassiveGay (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"Date rape drug"
The problem with this edit isn't whether or not GHB has been used as a date rape drug, but that the journalist's scare tactic is used here, without any criticism, as if it was a fact. --DrH (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , There are non-journalistic, non-scare tactic sources for this, e.g., WebMD and FDA. Would that fix the issue for you? Bongolian (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * date rape is the least of your worries with that stuff. people die from it all the fucking time. and there is this fuck AMassiveGay (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * GHB is an approved prescription medication in many jurisdictions. Even worse, 1,4-butanediol is not actually a controlled substance in the U.S. or Canada, and there's really no evidence given that 1,4-butanediol has been or even could be used as a date rape drug. We're not supposed to pull facts out of our ass here. It would be correct to say it has been used for date rape, but the current phrasing "GHB, a so-called date rape drug" is nothing but loaded language intended to mislead and scare the reader. To reiterate, phrasing needs to changed, not the facts. And yes, I'm sure there's a way to write it in the snarky point of view as well. Viz., "Good news: it's actually psychoactive. Bad news: it's an actual narcotic even in low doses, useful as a solvent in paints, as a cross-linker for plastics, as a treatment for cataplexy, and for applications in date rape..." --DrH (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * 'applications in date rape' sooo a date rate drug then. whats the problem here? AMassiveGay (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good that you mentioned - the draft phrasing I proposed was bad as well! So, the answer: is there any evidence that 1,4-butanediol has been ever used as a date rape drug? GHB yes, but this sort of logic can be abused to prove anything. Besides, we're supposed to cultivate realistic rather than sensationalistic views on dangerous materials. The current revision reads like the dihydrogen monoxide article. --DrH (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Added sections on actual legal highs
Just decided to go add some shit about RCs and inhalants - those are the two groups of (mostly) legal drugs I can think of that actually have psychoactive effects. If anyone has anything to add or thinks the section is irrelevant feel free to change it. Just thought it was good info to have in there. Penguinsfunnylolhaha (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Mugwort and blue lotus
Mugwort's more often discussed as a purported medicinal herb than a purported legal high, but I've seen discussions about it on TikTok (especially in witchcraft circles where people use it to induce spiritual experiences) and Erowid. Claimed effects run the gamut from mild sedation to lucid dreaming to hallucinogenic effects. This definitely should get a mention in the article if I or someone else can find more sources on it.

Blue lotus isn't as infamous but seems to be a known euphoriant, and as far as the US goes, it's only illegal in Louisiana. I've also personally learned about this via witchcraft social circles; I mention it alongside mugwort because people like to combine the two for spiritual reasons.

Where can I start looking for more info on these claims? Which section would these belong in?

--Zoe (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Mugwort is a cousin of wormwood of fame, of which I've had and was underwhelmed as far as the supposed wackiness goes (it's tasty enough, of course, and does all the things a strong shot of liquor will). The purported psychoactive compound  in this reportedly affects sleeping so I do think the lucid dreaming aspect of mugwort seems entirely plausible. Not sure why this is a dream herb though and why not other herbs with thujone (oregano, rosemary, lemon balm, etc.). In general lucid dreaming in poorly studied, let alone what induces it. I get the impression that this compound has only marginal if any effects when you are awake. Pregnant woman should avoid this compound as well.
 * Having looked into it more, I think the popularity of mugwort over other thujone-containing plants among witches and neopagans is purely traditional/folkloric. It's the first herb mentioned in the alongside some purported antivenoms. Combine that with anecdotes about the closely-related wormwood, medicinal claims about its abortifacient properties, and it being an invasive species in the US that grows like mint and can be bought for about $2 an ounce, boom, you've piqued the interest of young women on social media. --Zoe (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There seem to be a few psychoactive compounds in blue lotus, with various sources (eg wiki, this one) claiming, , and . Aporphine and apomorphine are "erectogenic" (natural Viagra!), and as a dopamine agonist are treatments for Parkinson's disease. There is, however, a little bit of agonist activity (at least for apomorphine) on a small part of the good ol' 5HT receptor (responsible for most classic psychedelic effects), so with very high doses I'd buy that you'd get a bit of psychedelic effects. The problem here is, apomorphine is also known as a very potent emetic (fancy-speak for: "you will vomit"), so it sounds like a very unpleasant way to get this effect. As with mugwort, the lucid dreaming aspect is plausible to me simply because lucid dreaming is so poorly studied. BobJohnson (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)