Fun talk:Legal highs

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Whoever claimed amphetamines don't produce euphoria has no idea what they're talking about DocFaust (talk)

It's a good idea to include a reference when approriate for your claims even if it is a Funspace page. Someone might revert your edits just on GP otherwise. Bongolian (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
References added, thanks to amphetamine. Still, silly to claim that amphetamines "generally don't produce euphoria," but caffeine and ephedrine do? DocFaust (talk)
Yes, your changes seem reasonable. Bongolian (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Amanita muscaria[edit]

Surprised there was no mention of fly agaric in the article. It's legal in most countries and is a potent deliriant. Its effects include euphoria, stimulation, sedation and sometimes hallucinations. — Unsigned, by: Cuddlef1sh / talk / contribs

It's covered in the "various fungi" section. What's missing is 'Peganum harmala (haoma) from Iran, one of the candidates for the semi-mythical soma. Bongolian (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hm, I reread that section and it describes Psilocybe. Searches for 'Amanita', 'fly agaric' or 'soma' result in nothing. — Unsigned, by: Cuddlef1sh / talk / contribs
Yeah, you could add it to that section. There are other hallucinogenic mushroom genera (Panaeolus and Copelandia), but Psilocybe is probably the most common in current usage and Amanita is important in folklore, being one of the candidates for the semi-mythological Soma. Bongolian (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Safety disclaimer/focus on harm reduction?[edit]

So I know this is just a goofy funspace article and arguably not directly missional; however, the problem is that there are quite a few suspicious/unreferenced claims throughout the entire article. Seeing as we’re talking about stuff people actually can and will try to get high off, I feel like it’s important to add a disclaimer about the limitations of the article, and also to focus more on how to stay safe while using. Does anybody have any thoughts on whether this would be a good idea? Thanks. 💞 ASELAនិយាយ 💞 22:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, if the article were to be revamped with a heavy focus on things like legality, social effects, pseudoscience, and safe use, do you think it would be possible to transition some version of this into main space? I know there’s already to the main space “legal highs” page, but that’s pretty much entirely about fake legal highs. Perhaps if this article could be revamped, some of it could be culled and added to the mainspace one. Any thoughts? thanks very much 💞 ASELAនិយាយ 💞 22:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Another legal high[edit]

'Mountains of paperwork in certain court cases (approaching the complexity of the Jarndyce v Jarndyce case in the Dickens novel). Anna Livia (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)