The concept of the 'psychedelic stimulant'

[Routemaster Flash]

I've noticed than when you read a lot of drug literature - by which I don't mean fiction, but encyclopeadia entries, introductory websites and so on - psychoatives are (rather artificially, of course) divided into certain discrete categories. Some of these categories seem to work quite well, so that you have the opiates/oids (opium itself, heroin, methadone, oxycodone etc. etc.), the other depressants ('sedative hypnotics': booze, barbs, benzos, methaqualone, GHB), the 'true hallucinogens' (either dissociatives; ketamine, DXM etc. or deleriants; tropane family) and of course cannabis, which is in some sense in a class of its own.

But then there's a problem. Until the 1980s or thereabouts, there were two fairly well defined other categories: the stimulants (cocaine, (meth)amphetamine, ephedrine, cathinone...) and the psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT...). But where does that great drug of the 1990s, MDMA, fit into this scheme? It seems to share important properties in common with the psychedelics - indeed, under the right circumstances, my mate Bob tells me it can be incredibly psychedelic - but at the same time it's also clearly a potent stimulant. It is, after all, first cousin to methamphetamine. There are several other compounds that would seem to fit this description, too - some of which have been put into another class called 'empathogens/entactogens', because of their special emotional effects, though SWIM would hesitate to call all psychedelic stimulants 'empathogens/entactogens'.

From SWIM's own experience, these drugs would seem to include the following:

*MDMA (perhaps the archetypal drug of this class)
*MDA (at least, SWIM once had some incredibly trippy pills that fit the descriptions of this drug's effects)
*TFMPP - in conjunction with BZP, at any rate
*mCPP - or whatever's in those white 'diamond' pills that are common in London at the moment.

From what SWIM's read, other drugs that would likely fit into this caregory include MDEA, MBDB, PMA and the ketone analogues of the MDxx family: methylone, butylone etc. - oh, and also the tryptamine, AMT (alpha-methyl-tryptamine). It would also seem that serotonin seems to be the most important neurotransmitter in the case of these drugs, unlike the 'straight' stimulants where it's got more to do with norepinephrine and dopamine.

I'd love to hear from other members here if they've got any thoughts, personal experiences or chemistry/pharmacology knowledge to add. Thanks a lot!

Edit: BUMP! Come on, there must be some pharma-geeks out there with something interesting to say about this...

[Desertfox]

All the phenethylamines display 'psychedelic stimulant' properties in SWIM's opinion, but the ones closer in relation to amphetamine display more stimulant properties(less visuals, more stimulation). The molecules proper name would give this away simply by looking at the end such as MDMA is 3,4-methylene-dioxymethamphetamine and methylone is 3,4-methylene-dioxymethcathinone

[Routemaster Flash]

Originally Posted by Desertfox

All the phenethylamines display 'psychedelic stimulant' properties in SWIM's opinion, but the ones closer in relation to amphetamine display more stimulant properties(less visuals, more stimulation). The molecules proper name would give this away simply by looking at the end such as MDMA is 3,4-methylene-dioxymethamphetamine and methylone is 3,4-methylene-dioxymethcathinone

Oh, for sure, SWIM appreciates the chemistry, but all the same he wouldn't ascribe any psychedelic activity as such to, say, regular d-amphetamine. Does SWIY find speed 'psychedelic'? And what about meth? SWIM hasn't had a chance to try it, but would be surprised if many users found anything 'trippy' about the drug (unless one counts hallucinations caused by sleep deprivation after an extended binge...) - even though meth is (SWIM thinks) a bit more serotonergic than amphetamine; sort of in between amphetamine and MDMA, though closer to amph...

As regards substituted amphetamines/phenethylamines, it strikes me that if you start with the basic amphetamine backbone, substitutions on the amine chain give you variations on a theme of 'straight' stimulants: meth, cathinone, ephedrine, methylphenidate etc.:


while substitutions on the ring give you drugs with a greater or lesser degree of psychedelic activity: the DO* series (greater)...

...and the MD*/PM* series (lesser)...

I'd love to hear from SWIY or anyone else with some insight into the pharmacology of this pattern, since SWIM is pretty much a neuro/pharma n00b.

[lostmente]

swim would argue the DOx series are quite stimulating...at least people describe a very 'methed' out buzz accompanying the traditional hallucinogen buzz

in reality tho, most drug users are poly substance users. If you have the capacity, instead of trying to recreate things at a chemical level stick to combination experiences, you should be pleasantly supplied with the experience

A word of note, the drug that kicks in first tends to set the tone for the entire experience

[Richi]

A wide array of drugs are stimulating, at least to enough of a degree to cause pupil dilation. However, the term 'stimulant' usually refers to a drug that increases mental and/or physical functioning, but promoting wakefulness, concentration, energy, etc.

As far as classifying drugs into certain categories, I believe you are able to distinguish between psychedelics and psychedelic stimulants, but not everyone would agree. Some psychedelics such as LSD also have a stimulating effect on some, but not others, so this would be a matter of debate.

Another drug which would span different categories is ketamine, which has produces depressant-like effects in small doses, but classifies as a dissociative hallucinogen in higher doses.