Against Hallucinogen
As everyone knows the word “psychedelic” was coined by Humphry Osmond in correspondence with Aldous Huxley in 1956 (“To fathom hell or go angelic, just take a pinch of psychedelic”). What is less known, but perhaps more nefarious, is that Osmond also designated the term hallucinogen (along with psychotomimetic) to be used as more technical synonyms for psychedelics. While psychotomimetic has been left behind as a quirk of history, hallucinogen is still very much in vogue in the scientific literature today and in everyday language. Just see the DEA webpage for “hallucinogens” to get the full bias. The hallucinogen as a classification groups together those classically psychedelic compounds, LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, DMT (these are technically serotonin 5-HT 2A Receptor Agonists), but also ketamine, cannabis, ibogaine, scopolamine (deadly nightshade) and harmaline. The hallucinogen is meant to alter perception or mood, retains intellect and memory, does not cause stupor or narcosis, minimal autonomic nervous system side effects, and is non-addictive. These criteria seem acceptable on their face, except of course for their principle heading of hallucinogen. Does not the term hallucinogen smuggle in a philosophical decision (regarding the nature of sobriety) that can tend to obscure or obfuscate the true effects of these substances? Might the power of these novel agents reside in the fact that they may actually dispel hallucinations, as opposed to inducing them?
