Content uploaded by Russell Newcombe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Russell Newcombe on Nov 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychonautics: a model and method for exploring the
subjective effects of psychoactive drugs
Dr Russell Newcombe, 3D Research
162 Chatham Street, Liverpool, England
First released in 1999; slightly revised in July 2013
____________________________________________________________________
_
ABSTRACT
Effective drug policies need grounding in scientific knowledge of the effects of
psychoactive drugs, yet relevant research is scarce – particularly studies of the
subjective experience of drug intoxication. Such research is now increasingly urgent
both because of the unprecedented increase in the prevalence and consumption of
illicit drugs over the last decade, and also because of the relatively small but growing
numbers of people experimenting with a range of hallucinogenic drugs (e.g. in the
free-party dance sub-culture). This paper presents a model of the phenomenology of
drug effects, and a methodology for exploring individual experience of the effects of
psychedelics and other drugs. A 10-dimensional model of the subjective experience
of drug effects is presented, covering: class, category, stage, phase, duration,
intensity, stability, consistency, consensus, and evaluation. This model was
developed from a top-down synthesis of concepts from several relevant theories and
a critique of extant research, combined with a bottom-up modification process based
on research into self-reported drug effects. The latter exercise involved a group of 10
experienced drug users who took various psychedelic and other drugs in rural
settings over ten weekends between 1994 and 2000. Each participant was trained to
report on their drug experiences, thus becoming a psychonaut: a scientific explorer of
inner space. A methodology was gradually developed for measuring the subjective
effects of drugs, based on three instruments: a general questionnaire about personal
characteristics and drug-taking history; a periodic monitoring procedure employing
physiological measures and external observations; and a retrospective self-report
questionnaire, based on response formats employing Shulgin’s 5-point scale of effect
intensity, coupled with a directional indicator. This was supplemented by the
psychonaut’s descriptive account of the drug experience. The psychonautics method
has been used to explore the subjective effects of many drugs, including MDMA,
LSD, ketamine, amphetamines, and opiates. The most recent, sophisticated
applications of the method involved exploring the subjective effects of 2CB and DMT,
providing an ‘effects profile’ for each drug. It is concluded that the science of
psychonautics is in its infancy, and that resources are urgently required to expand
theory and research in this field.
____________________________________________________________________
_
Keywords/phrases: psychonautics, psychonauts, subjective effects, drug
experiences, methods, models
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The mind-body problem
Any discussion of the effects of psychoactive drugs takes a position on what
metaphysical philosophers call the mind-body problem. For instance, when we talk
about a person’s experience (eg. a normal visual perception, or a visual
hallucination), and the neurotransmitter changes in the brain to which it corresponds
(eg. a normal synaptic process, or drug-induced synaptic modification), are we talking
about one event or two linked events? This is the essence of the mind-body problem,
and has puzzled philosophers for centuries. Monists believe that there is only one
reality (mind or matter), while dualists believe there are two (mind and matter), and
pluralists believe there are more than two (mind, matter, and, for example, God). The
two primary monist positions are physicalism and mentalism, represented by the key
philosophies of materialism (reality is physical) and idealism (reality is psychological).
The two core dualist positions are (1) that mental states and events are generated by
the brain - for instance, that they are causal endpoints (dualist epiphenomenalism); or
conversely, (2) that brain events and states are brought about by mental processes.
The basic position taken here is monist - that there is only one reality, one stuff
making up the universe - but also there are (at least) two conceptual
systems/languages for thinking about/describing reality. For instance, when you
perceive something (or hallucinate it under the influence of a drug), there is one
event occurring in the universe, but we have two languages for describing it - a
physicalistic language which explains it in terms of brain processes, and a mentalistic
language which describes it in terms of mind processes. An analogy is provided by
computers, where a particular computation (e.g. producing an image on the VDU
screen) can be explained in terms of hardware operations (eg. electrical on/off
sequences) or in terms of software operations (eg. programming instructions). This
paper presents a model of drug effects from the psychological perspective, and thus
focuses on mental “software “ rather than brain “hardware”.
1.2 Why study drug effects?
Many experts from different fields and professions involved with drug use have
concluded that the development of an effective drug strategy urgently requires a
major increase in the resources available for research into the effects of psychoactive
substances. There are few other areas of national and international policy where a
strategy towards a social problem is developed without recourse to a thorough
knowledge base which maps out the main territory. Yet, in the case of the drug
problem, the effects of drugs on mental processes and behaviour are notably under-
researched, and theories and models of the psychology of drug experiences are
conspicuous only by their absence. Such research is now increasingly urgent both
because of the unprecedented increase in the prevalence and consumption of illicit
drugs over the last decade (Newcombe 1998), and also because of the relatively
small but growing numbers of people experimenting with a range of hallucinogenic
drugs – for example, in the free-party dance sub-culture (Newcombe 1999). As
Cohen concludes in his editorial in Addiction, “serious drug research has never
generated good theories about drug effects … and, lacking good theory, there is an
inevitable lack of good empirical research on drug effects” (1995, p.ii).
Why are the subjective effects of drugs so under-researched? There are a variety of
responses to this question, depending on who you ask - from conspiracy theory views
that the government would prefer knowledge of what drugs do to remain shrouded in
3
mystery, to intellectual criticisms that science has trouble coming to grips with the
phenomena of subjective experience. Yet there have been increasing calls from
scientific authorities for more systematic study of conscious experience in general,
and the subjective effects of drugs in particular. For instance:
Even if we understand how the brain works, can we really expect to
understand subjective experience ... or will we need a whole new science
to make any progress at all? ... biologist Francisco Varela argues for just that:
“Why the reluctance to consider one’s experience as a realm to be explored
with a discipline just as rigorous as the one invented by science for material
phenomena?
Interrogate yourself. Editorial, New Scientist, 2120: 3 (7/2/98).
In any debate about the possible decriminalisation of drugs of addiction we
Need reliable information about the effects of the drug on the normal
population.
The more we learn about heroin, cannabis, ecstasy and so on the more likely
we are to formulate sensible policies for their control.
How dangerous is heroin? Editorial, British Medical Journal, 307: 807
(25/9/93).
In short, as well as developing a systematic description of the effects of different
drugs at the microlevel (eg. on memory, perception, movement etc.), we also need to
understand how they affect more complex experiences and behaviours at the
macrolevel. The best examples of this are recent research into the effects of drugs
on driving, sexual behaviour, and occupational tasks.
1.3 A gloss on early research into subjective effects of drugs
Research into the psychological effects of drugs is relatively scarce, compared with
the levels of research into areas such as prevalence, prevention, and treatment. The
relevant scientific discipline for the study of the psychology of drug effects is
phenomenology, as used by existential psychologists and other explorers of
conscious experience. Also known as introspectionism, phenomenology is the
science of experience, and its main method is verbal self reporting of mental
phenomena (states/events and structures/processes). Within this conceptual
framework, the definition of a drug effect is: the subjective awareness (experience) of
a mental state/event bought about by a chemically induced modification of
psychological processes.
Pioneering autobiographical examples of phenomenological research into the effects
of drug use include De Quincey’s Confessions of an English Opium Eater (1822),
Ludlow’s The Hasheesh Eater (1857), Freud’s Cocaine Papers, and Cocteau’s
Opium (1930) – see Jay (1999) for an excellent selection of such work. Interest in the
effects of LSD and other psychedelics expanded from the early 1950s (eg. Huxley’s
The Doors of Perception), with much research being conducted by the US military –
primarily to find a drug which disabled the enemy during wartime. The late 1950s and
early 1960s witnessed several studies into the addictive and mental disorder
potentials of opiates and stimulants (eg. Connel’s 1958 classic monograph
Amphetamine Psychosis). There were also small groups of studies which examined
the effects of opiates and stimulants on the inmates of institutions - e.g. prisons - or
medical services - e.g. drug clinics (see Parry 1992). The late 1960s and the 1970s
witnessed a wave of research and theorising on the subjective effects of cannabis
4
(eg. Becker’s On Becoming a Marijuana User, Tart’s On Being Stoned), and quasi-
scientific accounts of the effects of other “hippie” drugs (e.g. Timothy Leary on LSD,
John C. Lilly on ketamine). These developments were accompanied by several
classic literary contributions (eg. Junky by William Burroughs Snr, Speed by William
Burroughs Jnr, and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson).
For instance, Becker’s classic study On Becoming a Marihuana User provides an
early illustration of the importance of the new user’s subjective experience and
evaluation of a drug’s effects on his/her future behaviour involving the drug. In brief,
Becker noted that new users of cannabis became regular users through a three-stage
process. First, new users have to learn to use the drug by the most effective methods
and styles of use (eg. inhaling deeply when smoking cannabis) in order to experience
the effects of cannabis. Second, users have to recognise and perceive the effects of
the drug on subsequent trials. During initial uses of the drug, unusual changes in
subjective experience may not be identified by people with weaker introspective
capacities, or are quickly forgotten when the intoxication stage ends since there are
no previous experiences to which they can be easily assimilated in memory. Indeed,
it is a common observation that people trying cannabis for the first few times
frequently report no effects while appearing to experienced users in the group as if
they are as stoned as anyone else. When new users have learned to experience and
recognise the effects, they are then able to label them with sub-cultural jargon so that
the experience can be communicated. For instance, one well-known effect of
cannabis is the sudden increase in hunger it can produce. Thus, rumbling noises in
the stomach may pass unnoticed to the novice user, to be replaced in later cannabis
sessions with “my stomach feels strange”, then “I’m feeling really hungry”, and,
evenually, “I’ve got the munchies”. Next, the user must then decide whether an
identified effect is pleasant or unpleasant to them - for instance, do they regard
cannabis-induced hunger as a desirable or undesirable experience?
Grinspoon & Hedblom (1975) report a double-blind study in which subjects were
given a low dose (5mg) of dexamphetamine or a placebo, and asked to complete the
Profile of Mood States (POMS) Questionnaire – before use, and one, three and six
hours after use. The drug caused significant increases in self-reported vigour,
friendliness, elation, and positive mood – but not arousal or confusion These effects
were greatest at three hours, though some lasted as long as six hours. These
feelings were followed several hours later by depression (see also McKim, 2003,
p.223-4).
1.4 Recent research into the subjective effects of drugs
Over the last two decades, the progress of the literature on subjective drug effects
could be described as a disconnected undercurrent in the tidal flow of drugs
research, with relevant publications scattered across several disciplines and
academic journals. For instance, novel conceptual frameworks for theorising about
the psychological dimensions of drugs have emerged, though these are not generally
utilised by researchers. Indeed, systematic research into subjective drug effects has
been particularly neglected – though there are some notable exceptions. Some of the
best available maps of ‘psychedelic space’ and general models of the levels of
consciousness have emerged from the 60s and 70s. For instance, after taking lots of
drugs, floating in isolation tanks, and talking to dolphins in the 60s and 70s, John C.
Lilly developed a 2-dimensional model of psychedelic experience - with the highest
level involving travelling to alternative realities and communicating with ‘machine
5
elves’ (see: The Centre of the Cyclone or the film ‘Altered States’ based on his life).
Timothy Leary and his colleague Brian Barrett developed their own 8-level model of
psychedelic space in the 60s, ranging from normal awareness to peak transcendental
states (see: The Psychedelic Experience). This has been developed by other
psychonauts - most recently R. A. Wilson has revamped Leary’s ‘eight-circuit’ model
of consciousness in his books Prometheus Rising and Cosmic Trigger. Like Terence
McKenna in Food of the Gods, these authors consider consciousness in terms of the
three evolutionary levels of the human brain: reptile/biological, mammal/social, and
primate/ intellectual. Fischer’s Cartography of Inner Space identifies five levels of
consciousness based on the individual’s level of mental activity in relation to external
stimuli (the world). That is, normal consciousness can ‘drop’ down through tranquil
(zazen) to hypoaroused (samadhi), or rise up through aroused (sensitive) and
hyperaroused (schizoid) to ecstatic (mystical rapture).
In the 1990s, the Shulgins (man-and-wife American scientists) have written two
books, which describe and compare the specific effects of two different groups of
mind-bending drugs, PIHKAL (‘Phenethylamines I Have Known And Loved’) and
TIHKAL (Tryptamines I Have Known And Loved’). Finally, a vast wealth of
information about the psychological effects of drugs is kept in the private reports on
clinical trials of pharmaceutical companies, but this is largely unpublished and difficult
to access, for obvious reasons.
One clearly identifiable area of research into drug effects which has emerged since
the 1990s, are phenomenological studies of the effects of ecstasy (e.g. Liester et al.,
1992; Solowij et al., 1992; O’Dwyer & Raistrick 1994; Lenton et al., 1997). But
although a small number of studies have examined the phenomenology of the effects
of individual drugs (notably cannabis and ecstasy) or sometimes compared two
related drugs (eg. heroin and methadone, cocaine and amphetamines), there have
been few studies which have systematically compared several drugs on a range of
subjectively perceived effects. Only three have so far been found in the British
literature over the last decade. Atha & Blanchard (1997) and Release (1997) have
assessed drug users’ experiences of the good and bad effects of a range of illicit
drugs. Parker and colleagues (1998) investigated users’ experiences of the good
and bad effects of four dance drugs, with separate examination of effects in the initial
and residual phases of intoxication. The methods and findings of these studies are
briefly described below, followed by a critique of their approaches.
First, Atha & Blanchard (1997) conducted an anonymous questionnaire survey of
drug consumption among 1,333 “regular users” of cannabis in Britain in 1994, which
updated and extended the findings of a similar survey a decade earlier. The sample
was made up of three voluntary sub-samples: 1,091 people attending a major pop
festival (50% response rate); 160 people contacted through direct mailing to a list of
members of a pro-cannabis lobby group (13% response rate); and 82 people
contacted through snowball sampling. The male to female ratio of respondents was
2:1, and the mean age was 25 years (range: 15 to 68 years). Two-thirds were
employed, and one in six were unemployed. The sample under-represented
teenagers and ethnic minorities. Overall, 95.3% had used cannabis in the previous
week, and the vast majority had tried other illicit drugs - typically psychedelics and
stimulants. In addition to asking several questions about the use of cannabis and
other drugs, the survey also asked respondents about the subjective effects of drugs.
Respondents first rated the effects of each drug on a 10-point scale, where zero
represented highly negative effects, five indicated neutral, and 10 indicated highly
6
positive effects. Overall, the effects of nine drugs were rated as positive: cannabis
(8.8), magic mushrooms (7.3), LSD (6.9), ecstasy (6.4), tea/coffee (5.9), alcohol (5.9),
cocaine (5.5), amphetamines (5.3), and other psychedelics (5.2). By contrast, the
effects of five drugs were rated as negative: solvents (1.5), barbiturates (2.1), crack
(2.1), heroin (2.5) and tranquillisers (2.5).
Chart 1: Best & worst effects of drugs reported by regular drug users in UK,
1994
Best effects Worst effects
Relaxation Dysphoria
CANNABIS Sociability Paranoia
Euphoria Hallucinations
Energy Come-down
AMPHETAMINES Alertness Paranoia
Euphoria Insomnia
Raised awareness Bad trip
LSD Hallucinations Panic
Euphoria Paranoia
Euphoria Come-down
ECSTASY Loving feelings Panic
Sexual experience Paranoia
Spiritual experience Bad trip
MAGIC MUSHROOMS Contact with nature Panic
Euphoria Confusion
Confidence Paranoia
COCAINE Euphoria Insomnia
Respondents were also asked to indicate the best and worst effects and experiences
they had had with each drug they had tried. However, the data are interpreted and
presented in a manner which makes it difficult to draw direct statistical comparisons.
Therefore, Chart 1 presents the main three worst effects and main three best effects
(in order of mentions) for the six drugs whose effects were reported on by at least 50
respondents. It can be seen that users of each of these drugs tend to share certain
universal good effects (notably euphoria) and bad effects (e.g. paranoia), though
each of these drugs also typically has one or two specific effects which sets it apart
from most or all of the others – and these are usually good rather than bad effects
(see Chart 1). Thus, for instance, confidence is the hallmark of cocaine, raised
awareness characterises LSD, and loving and sexual feelings distinguishes ecstasy
from the other drugs.
Second, Release (1997) conducted face-to-face interviews with 503 people attending
18 dance events throughout London and the South East from March to
November 1996.
The interviews were voluntary, anonymous and confidential, though the procedure for
selection of respondents was unclear (described as ‘randomised’, and achieving a
98.5% response rate). Amongst other questions about drug use and attendance at
7
dance events, respondents were asked to indicate which of 16 negative effects and
16 positive effects they had experienced for each of 12 drugs, with breakdowns of
findings by sex and age-group provided for ecstasy only. As in the study by Atha &
Blanchfield, no distinction was made between stages or phases of intoxication, and
no measures were taken of the intensity or other dimensions of these effects (see
next section). The findings presented in Chart 2 show much correspondence with the
findings of Atha & Blanchfield, though also some notable differences. The drugs with
the most positive effects were (respectively) ecstasy, LSD, cannabis, amphetamines,
cocaine and magic mushrooms. By contrast, just three drugs averaged more than
one negative effect: ecstasy, amphetamines and LSD. The ratio of positive to
negative effects was highest for magic mushrooms, followed by cannabis and
cocaine.
Chart 2: Number and ratio of positive and negative drug effects
experienced by danceclub attenders, 1996 (Release survey)
Number Number of effects experienced
of resp’s Positive Negative Ratio
Ecstasy 425 6.6 2.2 3.0:1
LSD 393 5.0 1.5 3.3:1
Cannabis 475 4.6 0.9 5.1:1
Amphetamines 422 3.8 1.9 2.0:1
Cocaine 312 3.5 0.8 4.4:1
Magic mushrooms 318 3.4 0.5 6.8:1
Ketamine 156 1.6 0.9 1.8:1
Heroin 92 1.6 0.9 1.8:1
Crack cocaine 92 1.3 0.5 2.6:1
Benzodiazepines 167 1.0 0.3 3.3:1
Poppers 321 0.9 0.5 1.8:1
Methadone 45 0.9 0.8 1.1:1
Chart 3 presents the main good and bad effects indicated for each of 12 drugs,
grouped according to their psycho-chemical classification (depressants,
stimulants, hallucinogens, and deliriants). It can be seen that positive effects
were notably more likely to include affective states and states of
consciousness, whereas negative effects were far more likely to be based on
physiological effects. Cognitive and perceptual effects were rarely indicated –
especially effects on vision and hearing, attention, short-term and long-term
memory, thinking and learning. This may be due to general psychological
issues (i.e. such effects may be less amenable to subjective awareness and
conscious assessment) or to methodological artifacts (i.e. such effects may be
harder to verbalise or spontaneously report upon). This is a critical issue for
future research.
8
CHART 3: MAIN SELF-REPORTED EFFECTS OF VARIOUS DRUGS (RELEASE 1996)
Main positive effects reported for each drug
Benzodiazepines relaxation (29%), reduced anxiety (19%), happiness (10%)
Heroin reduced anxiety (29%), relaxation (28%), happiness (22%)
Methadone relaxation (27%), reduced anxiety (18%), happiness (9%)
Cocaine confidence (52%), energy (47%), happiness (43%)
Crack cocaine confidence (25%), happiness (16%), energy (15%)
Amphetamines energy (63%), confidence (48%), happiness (48%), sociability (45%)
Ecstasy happiness (75%), energy (69%), confidence (62%)
LSD happiness (58%), hallucinations (55%), heightened perceptions
(49%)
Magic mushrooms happiness (47%), hallucinations (35%), heightened perceptions
(31%)
Cannabis happiness (61%), relaxation (60%), sociability (34%)
Ketamine hallucinations (21%), relaxation (18%)
Poppers energy (16%), happiness (15%), sexual excitement (11%)
Main negative effects reported for each drug
Benzodiazepines fatigue (5%), blurred vision (3%)
Heroin vomiting (17%), nausea (16%), mood swings (8%), skin problems
(7%)
Methadone nausea (13%), blurred vision (9%), fatigue (9%), etc. (7% each)
Cocaine paranoia (13%), mood swings (11%), insomnia (9%), etc. (7% each)
Crack cocaine paranoia (9%), mood swings (7%), depression (7%), etc. (7% each)
Amphetamines weightloss (27%), insomnia (21%), depression (19%),paranoia
(18%)
Ecstasy nausea (22%), vomiting (20%), blurry vision (20%), weight loss
(19%)
LSD paranoia (28%), blurred vision (16%), panic (13%), insomnia (13 %)
Magic mushrooms paranoia (10%), blurred vision (8%), nausea (5%)
Cannabis paranoia (18%), amnesia/vague (13%), nausea (9%), fatigue (9%)
Ketamine blurred vision (14%), nausea (9%), vomiting (7%), depression (7%)
Poppers headaches (14%), nausea (6%), blurry vision (4%), passing out
(4%)
It can be seen that some effects are shared by many or most of the drugs, while other
effects distinguish a particular drug or group of drugs from the others. For instance,
happiness is a positive effect reported as a main effect of 11 of the 12 drugs (not
ketamine) - mirroring the findings of Atha & Blanchard (who used the term ‘euphoria’
in place of ‘happiness’). Similarly, some negative effects were reported for half or
more of the 12 drugs, including nausea, blurred vision, and paranoia. The most
prevalent positive effects associated with different drugs were happiness (75% of
ecstasy users, 61% of cannabis users) and energy (69% of ecstasy users, 63% of
amphetamine users). By contrast, the most prevalent negative effects were paranoia
(28% of LSD users), and weight loss (27% of amphetamine users). Depressant drugs
were characterised by the positive effect of reduced anxiety, and, to a lesser extent,
by the negative effect of fatigue. Stimulant drugs were distinguished by the positive
effects of confidence and energy, and by the negative effects of mood swings,
insomnia and depression. Hallucinogenic drugs were characterised by the positive
9
effects of hallucinations and heightened perceptions, and - along with stimulants - by
the negative effect of paranoia. This profile is particularly associated with psychedelic
drugs (LSD, magic mushrooms) – that is, the effects of ecstasy seem more similar to
those of stimulants than hallucinogens (Chart 3).
Age and gender-related differences in the self-reported effects of ecstasy were also
examined by the Release study. Women were up to twice as likely as men to report
most negative effects. Indeed, women were over twice as likely to report most of the
negative physiological effects, namely: nausea, stomach pain, headaches, and skin
problems (as well as irregular periods, which was not applicable to men). Men
reported only two negative effects as much as women, both of which related to states
of wakefulness, namely: insomnia and passing out. Women were also more likely
than men to report most positive effects of using ecstasy, though the gap was not as
great as with negative effects. The smallest gender difference was reported on sexual
excitement (30% of men and 31% of women). The authors concluded that “it is
possible that women experience more effects, both positive and negative, due to their
lower body weight” (1997: 23).
Reporting of negative effects diminished with increasing age, with 15-19s being one
and a half times more likely than over-30s to report negative effects of using ecstasy.
The biggest differences between the youngest and oldest age group – where the
former were more than twice as likely as the latter to report the effect – involved
physiological effects, namely: weight loss, stomach pains, skin problems, irregular
periods, and blurred vision (though this effect could be classified as perceptual). The
effects on which age seemed to have least influence were both states of
consciousness: insomnia and fatigue. To gloss over the findings on negative effects,
the distinguishing effects were blurred vision and nausea for 15-19 year olds,
vomiting and skin problems for 20-24 year olds, and mood swings and panic/anxiety
for 25-29 year olds. There may also have been a certain amount of age-related false
attribution – that is, attributing experiences (particularly long-term effects) to the
effects of ecstasy when there it is fairly possible that these experiences/effects could
be attributed to age-related characteristics. For instance, younger people in the
survey were more likely to attribute skin problems and irregular periods to ecstasy
use, while older people were equally likely to attribute memory problems and
insomnia to ecstasy use. Lastly, over-30s were somewhat less likely to report positive
effects than younger age-groups, though again the difference was not as notable as
for negative effects. Two of the most notable age differences in positive experiences
on ecstasy involved escaping from worries ((32% of 15-19s, compared with 12% of
over-30s) and experiencing oneness with the world (14-16% of 15-29s compared with
26% of over-30s).
Finally, Parker and colleagues (1998) carried out a 5-year follow-up survey of a
cohort of several hundred young adults in the North West of England. The initial
cohort, recruited in 1991 when they were aged 14-15 years, numbered 776 fourth-
year pupils from four schools in Merseyside and four in Greater Manchester. In 1995,
the fifth year of the survey was based on a boosted sample of 529 respondents (now
aged 18-19 years), including 229 of the original cohort. In the 1995 survey, those
who had tried each of four drugs – cannabis, amphetamines, LSD and ecstasy - were
asked about their experiences of the good and bad effects of these drugs on the last
occasion of use, with separate questions about the effects in the initial and residual
phases of intoxication. The number of respondents who had used each drug varied
from 102 for ecstasy (20% of sample) to 294 for cannabis use (59%). The five main
10
positive effects for each drug were reported by half or more of the ecstasy users, and
at least a third of the users of each of the other three drugs. Chart 4 shows that, of
the 14 positive effects listed, three were found to be included in the five main positive
experiences reported for each drug: friendliness, fun and happiness. A further two
positive effects – excitement and energy – were included in the top five positive
effects for three of the drugs (not cannabis, whose other two main positive effects
were relaxation and carefree feelings). Ecstasy was also more likely than the other
drugs to be described as producing positive effects, including loving and sexual
feelings (echoing the findings of Atha & Blanchard). The least reported effect of the
14 which were listed was feeling strong (from 1% of cannabis users to 18% of ecstasy
users).
Negative effects, numbering 11 in total, were far less likely to be indicated. The three
main negative effects for three of the drugs – cannabis, amphetamines and ecstasy -
were reported by between 5% and 10% of users, while the three main negative
effects for LSD were reported by between 15% and 31% of LSD users. The most
common negative effects – each listed in the top three negative effects for most or all
of the four drugs – were feeling foolish, paranoia, and anxiety. The most prevalent
negative effect was reported to be queasiness by cannabis users, paranoia by LSD
users, paranoia/anxiety by amphetamine users, and loss of control by ecstasy users.
LSD was more likely than the other drugs to be described as producing negative
effects, including feeling foolish and scared. Some of these ‘effect profiles’ (e.g. fun
in all four profiles; queasy for cannabis; foolish for LSD) are notably different from
those emerging from the Release survey, and this may be partly or largely based on
the labels and categories used to describe and classify drug effects – as well as the
instruction to focus on the last occasion of use.
CHART 4: MAIN SELF-REPORTED EXPERIENCES OF 4 DRUGS (Parker et al.,
1998)
Main positive experiences
Cannabis relaxed (62%), friendly (43%), fun (37%), happy (34%), carefree (33%)
LSD fun (41%), happy (35%), energetic (35%), excited (34%), friendly
(32%)
Amphetamines energetic (76%), friendly (46%), fun (46%), excited (42%), happy
(35%)
Ecstasy energetic (63%), friendly (59%), fun (51%), happy (51%), excited
(47%)
Main negative experiences
Cannabis queasy (9%), foolish (7%), paranoid (5%)
LSD paranoid (31%), anxious (19%), lost control (15%)
Amphetamines paranoid (7%), anxious (7%), foolish (7%)
Ecstasy lost control (10%), anxious (8%), foolish (7%)
Respondents were also asked about their positive and negative drug experiences ‘as
the effects were wearing off’. Between one and three in 10 respondents indicated
that they felt no problematic effects in the residual phase of intoxication, from 11% of
amphetamine users to 27% of cannabis users. Three residual positive experiences
were reported by more than one in 10 respondents for each of the four drugs.
11
Including in the top three positive effects for all four drugs were relaxation and
happiness, though three of the four drugs – cannabis, LSD and amphetamines -
exhibited ‘sadness that it was over’ as their top residual ‘positive’ effect (Chart 5).
The ‘desire for more’ was the fourth most prevalent residual positive effect.
CHART 5: MAIN SELF-REPORTED EXPERIENCES OF 4 DRUGS,
‘ AS THE EFFECTS WERE WEARING OFF’ (Parker et al., 1998)
Main positive experiences
Cannabis relaxed (32%), desire for more (13%), happy (13%),
LSD sad it was over (16%), relaxed (12%), happy (12%)
Amphetamines sad it was over (13%), relaxed (12%), desire for more (9%)
Ecstasy sad it was over (20%), relaxed (18%), happy/desire for more (11%
each)
Main negative experiences
Cannabis headache (13%), sick (10%), depressed (6%), foolish (6%)
LSD depressed (22%), headache (19%), glad over (16%), paranoid (13%)
Amphetamines depressed (30%), headache (20%), sick (17%), disappointed (8%)
Ecstasy depressed (24%), headache (19%), sick (14%), disappointed (11%)
The four main negative residual experiences reported by respondents for each of the
four drugs are also presented in Chart 5. The first and second most frequent
experiences for three of the drugs were feeling depressed and having a headache,
though these were also first and third ranking effects for cannabis users. Similarly,
feeling sick was in the top four effects for three drugs (not LSD). The fourth most
prevalent negative effect was feeling disappointed, which ranked fourth for both
amphetamines and ecstasy.
Comparison of the findings of these three studies reveals many similarities but also
several salient differences, though these could be largely or wholly due to differences
in the methods employed. For instance, Atha & Blanchfield and Release did not find
as much headache and depression reported as did Parker and colleagues – though
the latter were concerned with both initial and residual phases of intoxication. In
addition, compared with the studies by Atha & Blanchard and Parker and colleagues,
the Release study was more concerned with specific effects rather than general drug
experiences, and also included more physiological effects.
More recently, Newcombe (2008) reported on The Psychonautics Project, a long-term
intermittent research enterprise set up in the UK in 1990, which employed a series of
mixed-method studies of the phenomenology of hallucinogenic drug effects. This
article reports a case study of a ketamine trip by a British academic in 1996, as an
attempt to illuminate the unique nature of ketamine’s effects. The account was based
on a retrospective written self-report by the psychonaut of two serial injections of
40mg of ketamine. Set and setting variables are also described. The account focuses
on his experiences of an alternative reality occupied by disembodied beings, visual
hallucinations, the repetition of particular words and statements, and his affective
reactions. The paper concludes by considering the impact of ketamine on depression,
the importance of reflexivity in researching drug effects, and the critical role of
12
psychonautics in the development of effective drug policies (see also: Newcombe
1999, 2001, 2005).
In conclusion, though recent phenomenological studies of drug experiences should
be applauded for their revival of research into the subjective effects of drugs, they
share many methodological problems. Thus, while noting that each of the three
earlier studies of self-reported drug effects described above were primarily focused
on other drug issues, their approaches to measuring and reporting the
phenomenological effects of drugs were fundamentally flawed. First, there are
ambiguities in the level of description – with concepts like effect and experience
being used interchangeably; and ‘effect’ being used to cover both complex mental
states like paranoia as well as simpler component processes like heightened
perceptions, confused thinking, and hostility (Newcombe 1996). Second, these
studies either presented respondents with restricted, haphazard lists of effect items,
or else applied an unsophisticated, undetailed conceptual analysis to open-ended
responses. Third, respondents were either asked about drug effects they had
experienced in general for each drug, or about the last occasion of use – which may
have been last week or last year. Fourth, the use of terminology to label drug effects
was generally vague, and often ambiguous and inconsistent. Each study tended to
adopt different labels for presumably similar effects. More consideration needs to be
given to the similarities and differences between the following pairs of terms/phrases,
all of which were employed in these studies: feeling sick/nauseous; happy/euphoric;
calm/relaxed; disappointed/sad it is over; panic/lost control. Lastly, the classification
of certain effects as positive (good) or negative (bad) is also debatable – for example,
‘sad it was over’ (positive), and glad it was over (negative).
Clearly, what is needed to develop the science of psychonautics is a conceptual
model of drug effects, coupled with a methodology which allows the design of
measurement instruments which systematically explore drug effects. Such an
approach would develop and utilise a standardised terminology for subjective drug
effects, as well as paying more attention to such important issues as level of
description and the dimensions of drug effects. The development and current state of
such a model is described in the next section.
13
2. A CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF DRUG EFFECTS
2.1 Dimensions of drug effects
A useful, viable classification system has categories and concepts which are mutually
exclusive, totally exhaustive, internally consistent, clear and unambiguous, and
empirically testable. This paper presents an initial model of the subjective effects of
drugs which attempts to meet these criteria, as well as having practical applications in
social policy responses. This model has evolved from a top-down synthesis of
concepts from several relevant theories and a critique of extant research (see
previous section), combined with a bottom-up modification process based on
research into self-reported drug effects (see next section). There are 10 key
dimensions of the subjective effects of drugs which comprehensively and explicitly
define them (Chart 6). Strictly speaking, the first four of these are not dimensions, but
basic, nominal categories of “content”, while six are dimensions along which each
effect can vary. However, for convenience, each dimension may also be
trichotomised into high, medium and low levels.
CHART 6: 10-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF DRUG EFFECTS
1. CLASS: the general conceptual domain of an effect (physical, mental or social)
2. CATEGORY: the taxonomy (systematic, hierarchical classification) of an effect
employing the terms and concepts of each class/domain
3. STAGE: the classification of an effect by general time period – that is, before,
during,
and after intoxication
4. PHASE: the classification of an effect by specific time period within each stage -
for instance, the onset, main and residual phases of the intoxication stage
5. INTENSITY: level of subjective awareness of an effect (from none to maximum)
6. DURATION: the stretch of time over which an effect occurs (length of
experience)
7. STABILITY: the extent of change in the intensity of an effect – broadly divisible
into continuous and intermittent effects
8. CONSENSUS: the prevalence of an effect across different users of the drug
9. CONSISTENCY: the frequency of the effect across occasions of use of the drug
for the individual
10. EVALUATION: the subjective assessment of the value of the effect (e.g.
good/bad, interesting/uninteresting).
2.2 Content classification
The first two related conceptual tools concern the basic classification (taxonomy) of
the content of the effect. The three basic ways of classifying a drug effect are
physical, mental and social. Each of these classifications involves fundamentally
different levels of human existence, and thus requires its own theoretical language
and framework – namely: physical science (e.g. biology), psychological science (e.g.
cognitive psychology), and social science (e.g. sociology). For instance, take a
specific drug effect like ‘seeing’ geometrical patterns in one’s visual field while under
the influence of LSD. The broad classification of the effect is psychological - that is, it
must be described and interpreted within the concepts and theories of psychology -
14
the experience cannot be reduced to physiological events in the brain (though
neurological theories offer another kind of explanation). By contrast, a perceived rise
in body temperature can be classified as physical - that is, can be given a
physiological (biological) explanation (though the subjective perception of the
temperature change still requires a psychological explanation).
Within each of the three main classes of effect, there is a hierarchy of sub-classes or
categories of effect, which can be described in terms of a taxonomy (similar to
biology’s classification of life-forms into kingdoms, species, families etc.). For
instance, ‘seeing’ geometrical patterns on LSD can be initially classified as a
perceptual effect, and within perception, can then be categorised as a visual effect;
and, within visual effects, can then be categorised further as a form effect. Other
visual effects might include replicating images, changes in colour intensity, light
flares, and movement traces.
Psychological effects can be classified into four classic groups:
(1) Cognitive - information-processing aspects of mind (eg. memory, learning,
planning)
(2) Perceptual - a special class of cognitive processes based on sensory information
(3) Affective - emotional states and events (basic feelings, social emotions, moods)
(4) States of consciousness – including energy, identity,
(5) Unconscious – drives, intuition, non-conscious states (eg. dreams, trance).
Consciousness is the most complex of the higher-level psychological processes, and
it is important for a conceptual framework to distinguish the key general parameters
of consciousness from closely related physiological, cognitive and affective
processes/structures (Newcombe 1986). For instance, fatigue (awareness of low
energy levels) is considered a dimension of consciousness, whereas aching muscles
is a physical effect and lack of concentration is a cognitive effect. The primary
parameter of consciousness is awakeness (varying from comatose, through various
levels of sleep, to various levels of waking consciousness from drowsy to alert).
Other abstract parameters of consciousness range from waking states to more non-
conscious states, including: comfort (general awareness of body sensations);
sociability (orientation to other people); wisdom (capacity to intelligently apply
knowledge and experience); intuition (capacity for preconscious, non-rational
inferencing); the closely related dimensions of naturality (degree of integration
with/alienation from the natural world) and spirituality (awareness of and sensitivity to
mystical aspects of life); and the unconscious states of dreaming, hypnosis and
trance.
The typical experience, whether “ordinary” or drug-induced, has all four aspects in
variable weightings. Thus, two prlmary levels of description are required in a
taxonomy of drug effects: atomic and molecular. Atomic effects are the conceptual
building blocks of the model, and molecular effects are the core structures, made up
of patterns of atoms. For instance, paranoia is a molecular effect made up of the
atomic effects of increased attention to others behaviour (perceptual pick-up), biased
attributions about their intentions (cognitive process), and feelings of persecution and
vulnerability (emotional states). In developing a classification model of drug effects,
efforts should also be made to make the definition of each effect category mutually
exclusive (no overlapping content) and internally consistent (no conflicting content);
while the completed set of categories should be totally exhaustive (cover all possible
effects). Ideally, this requires the design and elaboration of a formal descriptive
language - a set of symbols and their possible relationships (like Schank & Abelson’s
15
conceptual dependency theory, which models the types of events and causes
involved in episodes of social interaction). However, it is possible to proceed in an
“organic” fashion, developing parts of the theory of drug effects as and when it
becomes appropriate (i.e. when feedback from others arrives, or there are new
empirical inputs). Hopefully, this gradual and partly lateral construction of the drug
effects theory will also allow one part of the model to catalyse or “bootstrap” another
part. It also facilitates strategic flexibility and more plasticene manoeuvres than a
stricter approach to theorizing would permit, and since we are heading into uncharted
territory, this is clearly a wise approach.
2.3 Stages and phases
The third and fourth conceptual tools - stage and phase - mirror the structure of the
class and category system, but on the temporal dimension. That is, stage refers to
the three broad time-slots that characterise any target event: before, during and after.
In the case of drug effects, the before-stage concerns expectations and conditioned
responses - for instance, some heroin users, especially before they have their first hit
of the day, will retch when they see a bag of smack. Expectations about drug effects
may also lead the user to experience ‘effects’ (triggered by memories of past drug
experiences) before any neurotransmitter changes have been instigated by the drug
in their brain. This pre-intoxication stage is followed by the main intoxication stage
(sometimes called short-term effects), which is followed by the third post-intoxication
stage (sometimes called medium and long-term effects).
These stages can also be further divided into sub-stages, called phases. There are
three phases of the intoxication stage - onset, main and residual effects. For
instance, the most famous effects in each intoxication phase are the rush caused by
injecting drugs (onset phase), the peak effects of psychedelic trips (main phase), and
the come-down from use of stimulants (residual phase). Most studies of subjective
drug effects have neglected the phase dimension, though there are recent notable
exceptions (e.g. Curran & Travill 1997; Parker et al., 1998). Lastly, there are two key
phases in the post-intoxication stage: medium term and long-term after-effects. The
former phase concerns effects in the days and weeks following intoxication, while the
latter phase concerns effects occurring several months and years following
intoxication. After-effects is an ambiguous term, which blurs the distinction between
the residual phase of intoxication and the post-intoxication stage.
2.4 Intensity, duration and stability
The fifth to seventh dimensions - intensity, duration and stability - can also be
grouped together for conceptual reasons. The intensity of an effect concerns its
subjectively perceived quantitative level (i.e. strength, amount). For instance, effects
such as euphoria, nausea etc. can be described as weak, moderate/clear or strong in
intensity.
The Shulgins (1992, 1997) have developed a six-level system of classification, based
on the three traditional levels - weak, clear and strong – ‘topped and tailed’ by a zero
level (no change) and a maximum level (Chart 7). The sixth level is a special
category designed to represent the unique intensity of a ‘peak experience’
(transcendental experiences which typically bring about major, lasting changes in the
way someone thinks, feels and behaves).
16
Chart 7: Model of subjective awareness of intensity of
drug effects
________________________________________________________________
-- No change - no noticeable effect (baseline)
--/+ Weak - uncertain feelings on presence/absence of effect
+ Clear - a noticeable effect, with discernible duration but
less clear content (often with physiological signs)
++ Strong – an effect of above average to quite high
intensity,
In which content & duration of effect are
discernible
+++ Maximum – total subjective awareness of effect, in
which
All dimensions are clearly discernible and reportable
+ ++ + Special category: magical/mystical state (peak
experience)
Source: A. Shulgin & A. Shulgin (1992). PIKHAL. Transform Books.
The duration of an effect concerns how long it lasts, which depending on the type of
effect, can be measured in seconds, minutes, hours or even days. One of the more
useful devices for describing drug effects is the “intensity by duration” graph, where
intensity occupies the vertical axis and duration occupies the horizontal axis (see
Figure 1).
Figure 1: Intensity-duration graph
intensity
17
--------- duration ----------->
____________________________________________________________________
_
The seventh dimension - the stability of a drug effect - concerns the extent of change
in the presence or absence, or intensity, of an effect. The key dichotomy can be
expressed in the question: is the effect continuous or intermittent? Stability is related
to both duration (the occurrence of an effect over time) and intensity (level of
awareness of an effect). That is, stability represents a primary feature of the
relationship between intensity and duration - the extent to which an effect has
constant levels of intensity (eg. high/low) over a set period of time. When the
intensity of an effect alternates between high and low (or present and absent) over
the course of the stage, the effect is called intermittent. When intensity is constant
(high or low, present or absent) across the entire duration of the stage, the effect is
called continuous. The stablility dimension is applicable to each stage of intoxication,
from pre-intoxication to post-intoxication. For instance, take the example of an LSD
trip, and the effects which some people experience. In the main intoxication stage
(short-term effects) visual hallucinations tend to be intermittent, whereas the effect of
raised awareness is relatively continuous. In the post-intoxication stage (medium to
long-term effects), flashbacks are intermittent effects whereas when a model
psychosis occurs it tends to have a continuous duration from onset to recovery.
Lastly, there are additional conceptual dimensions which apply only to long-term drug
effects (see Box).
2.5 Consistency and consensus
The eighth and ninth primary dimensions of drug effects are consensus and
consistency. These concepts are borrowed from attribution theory, a cornerstone of
social psychology. Consensus concerns the likelihood or prevalence of the effect
across different individuals and groups. A high consensus effect is one experienced
by most people when using that drug, and a low consensus effect is one rarely
experienced by people who use that drug. For instance, talkativeness is generally a
high consensus (prevalent) effect of cannabis smoking, though for some people (eg.
introverts) it remains fairly unlikely. Consistency concerns the prevalence of an effect
across different occasions (times and settings) for the same individual. For instance,
the high consensus effect of talkativeness caused by cannabis use may be low
consistency for a particular individual, who may experience the effect only on some
occasions of being stoned, perhaps only in some sets (eg. very good mood) and
some settings (eg. company of close friends). In short, by contrast to the other
dimensions which are internal measures of psycho-biological effects of drugs,
consensus and consistency are external, psycho-social measures of drug effects
which represent their prevalence across people (drug users) and places/times (drug-
taking episodes).
As has been argued above, wild claims are increasingly being made about the
prevalence of a drug effect based on isolated incidents, or a small series of cases
highlighted by the mass media (eg. ecstasy psychoses, instant addiction to crack).
One important task for the scientific study of drug effects is therefore to establish in
18
each case the prevalence of an effect across people (including population sub-
groups) and contexts (including personality types, social situations, and cultures).
2.6 Subjective evaluation
Last, but by no means least, is the tenth dimension of drug effects: subjective
evaluation - the user’s personal assessment of the value of a drug effect. It should be
immediately stated that this is clearly the dimension of most interest to most drug
users, and also that one person’s euphoria is another’s dysphoria. The aesthetics of
an experience - the evaluative feelings that the user experiences in relation to the
effects of a drug on their mind - are bathed in subjectivity. Good, bad and neutral are
three values which provide a broad tripartite classification of this currently mysterious
evaluation process. However, it should be clear that subjective assessments of the
value or worth of a drug effect can be based on various questions, depending on a
person’s worldview, attitudes and so forth - for instance: how expected/unexpected
was it? how interesting? how useful? how emotional? how instrumental? how
spiritually enlightening? how challenging? etc..
DIMENSIONS OF POST-INTOXICATION DRUG EFFECTS
In addition, there are three other important dimensions of drug effects which apply
only to the post-intoxication stage – medium and long-term effects - and so are not
general dimensions of drug effects. These conceptual dimensions are permanence,
reversibility and functional significance. The typical scenario in which these concepts
are applied are debates about the harmful long-term effects of drug use - for instance,
the effects of ecstasy (MDMA) on serotonergic neurotransmission, and thus on mood
and mental health. The validity and weight of such claims need to be evaluated by
assessing five sequential questions, the first two of which are preconditions for the
subsequent three questions – namely:
(1) Does the effect exist? More specifically, how prevalent is the alleged effect of the
drug among occasional and regular users?
(2) If the drug effect exists and/or is prevalent among users, is it caused wholly or
largely by use of the particular drug, or are other factors important (e.g. other drugs,
consumption factors, set and setting features)?
Once evidence of a link between a harmful neuro-psychological outcome (eg. mental
disorder) and the use of a particular drug (eg. ecstasy) is established, the next three
relevant questions derive from the three dimensions of long-term drug effects
mentioned above, namely:
(3) is the effect temporary or permanent (eg. does it start to disappear when use of
the drug ceases)?
(4) if the effect is permanent, is the effect reversible or irreversible (eg. by medical
treatment, therapy, etc.)?
(5) if the effect is irreversible (or even if it is not), is it functionally significant?
The question of significance concerns whether a permanent change in mental/brain
processes actually has any impact on a person’s behaviour which is relevant to their
capacity to perform the tasks required by people in general or by them in particular.
For instance, research may find evidence of permanent changes in the brains of
some people using particular drugs, but this may have no (significant) effects on their
19
psychological functioning; and if it does, these changes in mental functioning may
have no (significant) effects on behaviour. Thus, the crux of many such debates
often rests on what people regard as “significant” changes in mental processes or
behaviour. Such a judgement ultimately rests on moral values, and consensus
among experts is perhaps the best yardstick which can be offered.
In summary, the relevant chain of questions in assessing claims about the long-term
psychological effects of a form of drug use may be summarised as: does the effect
happen? Does the drug cause it? Is the effect permanent? Is it reversible? And,
lastly, does it significantly affect the behaviour or life of the person?
20
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Participants
The research instruments were developed between 1994 and 2000, by testing and
discussion among a voluntary group of psychonauts, over 10 weekend sessions. A
psychonaut is defined as an adult user of psychoactive drugs who agrees to
participate in voluntary, confidential and anonymous research which investigates the
subjective effects of drugs as they are used in normal, everyday settings. They also
need to meet three other criteria for selection:
(a) they should have experience of regularly using psychoactive drugs over at least
10 years, particularly hallucinogenic drugs;
(b they should currently be in good physical and mental health, with no drug-related
problems;
(c) they should be educated to university/college degree level, and preferably have
professional experience of dealing with drug problems or responding to drugs issues
(e.g. relevant education, research, training, service provision, etc.).
The age range of the 10 psychonauts was 25 to 55 years (seven were men, and three
were women). All but one were white Europeans. Their occupations included
writers, medics, academics, drugs workers, and other professions.
3.2 Procedure
Ten individuals who met these preconditions each participated in between one and
eight of the 10 research sessions conducted during the 5-year period, averaging two
or three sessions each. The setting for the sessions was generally a rural
house/cottage, and the locations included various parts of the UK, France,
Switzerland, Netherlands and Germany. Before taking part in a research exercise,
most potential psychonauts were present at sessions in which other people
participated as psychonauts; and each received some degree of training in the
evolving methodology, depending on their natural introspective talents and the stage
of development of the training techniques. At present, the initial psychonautics
training session takes between one and two hours, and is based on describing the
conceptual model of subjective drug effects and the related methodology for
measuring such effects, as well as a ‘dress rehearsal’ (simulation) of the self-
reporting tasks involved.
Turning to the main research session, each psychonaut is involved in a 4-stage
procedure:
(1) they complete an initial questionnaire before consuming the drug to be monitored
– this asks general demographic and personal questions, as well as taking a history
of their past and present drug use; ideally, this stage should also incorporate a
battery of personality and other standardised psychological tests;
(2) they consume the drug to be monitored, and are subject to external monitoring by
the research team during the intoxication stage;
(3) as soon as possible after the drug experience is over, they complete the main
self-report questionnaire for measuring subjective drug effects;
(4) the completed questionnaires are examined, and a group discussion is held about
the nature of the drug experience, and the capacity of the research instruments for
effectively measuring such experiences.
21
Although hallucinogens were the key drugs of interest, the main drugs explored over
the 10 psychonautics sessions included:
Hallucinogens: cannabis, LSD, DMT, MDMA, MDEA, 2CB, psilocybe, mescaline,
Deliriants: ketamine, nitrous oxide, alky nitrites
Stimulants: amphetamines, cocaine, khat
Depressants: benzodiazepines, heroin, morphine, alcohol
3.3 Research instruments
As mentioned above, there were three research instruments – one for before, during
and after the drug experience. These questionnaires have been in a perpetual state
of dynamic evolution through theorising and testing, though are now nearing a static
‘ratchet’ stage of completion (see Pirsig 1991). The initial questionnaire, completed
before the drug experience, collects demographic and personal information, and a
detailed record of past and current drug use. In larger sample surveys, such
information, along with other psychological measures, would be used to investigate
the influence of set (personality, mood, expectations, etc.) and setting (situation,
behaviour) on the subjective effects of drugs. Psychonauts who reveal a personal or
family history of mental disorder are also advised at this point that some drugs can
trigger latent mental disorders. However, the decision to take a drug remains their
own.
During the intoxication stage, each psychonaut is externally monitored by a
researcher in order to collect information about a core set of physical and mental
effects. General observations are taken throughout this stage, accompanied by the
taking of systematic measures at periodic intervals – the time being dependent on the
duration of the drug experience (e.g. a one-hour experience may be systematically
measured at 15-minute intervals, whereas a six-hour experience may be
systematically measured every 60 minutes). At present, the core set of systematic
measures can be collected in about 5 minutes. The number and frequency of
systematic measures was kept to a minimum in order to reduce the influence of
research ‘intrusions’ on the experience of the psychonauts. The core set of
physiological measures include pulse rate, temperature, breathing rate, muscular
tension, digestion, and characteristics of the eyes (e.g. pupil dilation), mouth (e.g.
saliva levels), and skin (e.g. perspiration). The main behavioural and psychological
measures taken cover body movements (motor activity, coordination), speech (rate of
talking, coherence), level of cognition (awareness, memory), and affective states
(mood, emotions).
The main self-report questionnaire was completed by all psychonauts as soon as
possible after the drug experience. For some, this would be on the same day before
sleeping, while others completed the questionnaire the following day after sleeping.
The booklet currently has four main sections, which are designed collectively to cover
most of the important dimensions of subjective drug effects – though further
modifications will inevitably be required. The first section assesses some of the
general parameters of the experience, including:
(1) Consumption factors: drug(s) taken, route of use, and dose;
(2) Intoxication parameters – namely:
(a) the duration of the three phases of intoxication (onset, main, and residual);
(b) key dimensions of the overall experience – intensity, pleasure and
interestingness;
(c) the extent to which the experience met with or conflicted with expectations.
22
The second section briefly assesses the subjectively experienced physical effects of
the drugs, using two types of measure. Five dimensions of physical effects were
found to be both highly important across a range of drugs and reliably reported when
measured on five-point bipolar scales - employing very and quite qualifiers, and a
normal/average midpoint. These were: muscular tension (relaxed-tense),
temperature (cold-hot), pulse rate (slow-fast), breathing (slow-fast) and state of mouth
(dry-moist). Instead of circling one of the five numbers, psychonauts were also given
the option of indicating that the physical effect varied across the experience (e.g. felt
hot and cold at different times). Other physical effects which were reported from the
early stages of research, but which were typically less frequent or specific to
particular drugs, were presented as a list of 30 items. Psychonauts were then asked
to indicate the level of their experience of these effects during intoxication – none, a
little, or a lot (or don’t know). These physical effects ranged from autonomic reactions
such as shuddering and yawning, through affective displays like crying and laughing,
to partly voluntary actions such as pacing and sighing.
The third section focused on the main effects of interest: psychological phenomena.
These were divided into four sub-sections, based on traditional classifications in
psychology: perceptual modalities, cognitive processes, affective states, states
of consciousness, and social behaviours. The first sub-section has six
measures pertaining to the six perceptual modalities – visual, auditory, olfactory,
gustatory, tactile, and balance. The second sub-section focuses on five
measures of thought and reasoning (e.g. short-term memory, decision-making).
The third sub-section covers the six basic emotions (happiness, sadness, anger,
fear, disgust, surprise) and some higher social emotions (e.g. shame, love). The
fourth sub-section focuses on a miscellany of mental states not easily classified
under the first three headings – including drives (e.g. libido, hunger, comfort)
and complex higher-level states of consciousness (e.g. humour, sense of
identity, intuition, mystical states). The final sub-section focuses on three key
measures of social behaviour (e.g. group orientation, talkativeness). Each
measure of subjective psychological effects is based on a five-point unipolar
scale of effect intensity coupled with a directional indicator. Following
experimentation with other measurement approaches, this has so far turned out
to be the most ‘intuitively right’ approach to psychonautics. The intensity scale
was adapted from Shulgin’s scheme for classifying the level of awareness of
drug effects, excluding the four-plus special category (see previous section). On
the current intensity scale, zero represents no change, 1 stands for weak
effects, 2 indicates clear effects, 3 represents strong effects, and 4 indicates
maximum effects. Ideally, three copies of the second and third sections should
be provided, one for each of the three phases of effects: onset, main, and
residual. However, in practice this can make the questionnaire difficult and
tedious to complete, and its retrospective nature means that the accuracy of
such a detailed assessment could be restricted by memory and fatigue effects.
Thus, a more useful and viable approach might be to question psychonauts
about whether there are any salient differences between the effects reported in
the main phase and those in the preceding phase (onset) and following phase
(residual). If salient differences are reported, these can then be measured on
an appropriate sub-set of scales.
Finally, the fifth section allows psychonauts to give an account of the experience in
their own words. Though there is an obvious argument why this account should be
23
given before completing the previous four sections, the reason why it is presented as
the final exercise is so that psychonauts are able to identify any aspects of the
experience that are not covered by the previous questions and rating scales, and so
give details of these unmeasured effects of the drug in their descriptive account.
Future revisions of the method can then attempt to develop ways of measuring the
‘untapped’ content of the drug experience.
24
4. SOME PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
4.1 The 2CB and DMT sessions
In the initial sessions, the main aim was to develop the methodology of
psychonautics. Though this remains a major aim of the research, more recent
sessions have involved exploratory efforts to develop a framework for systematically
describing and comparing the effects of specific drugs. This is achieved by
constructing an ‘effect profile’ for a target drug, by sifting the findings for a group of
psychnoauts in two stages:
(1) a numerical summary of the numbers reporting indicating each level of intensity
and each directional indicator for each listed effect;
(2) a verbal summary of the effects reported at the top two levels on the consensus
dimension – that is, by whether the effect was reported by all or most, as compared
with half, some or none of the psychonauts.
The preliminary findings reported here concern the construction of effect profiles for
two psychedelic drugs:
(1) DMT: dimethyltryptamine, an indolealkylamine hallucinogen (related to LSD); and
(2) 2CB: bromodimethoxyphenethylamine, a phenylalkylamine hallucinogen (a
chemical cousin of MDMA/ecstasy).
Eight psychonauts participated in this session, each having decided of their own free
will to take 2CB on the first day (swallowing 5mg pills in doses of either 20 or 25
mgs), while a further six took DMT on the second day of the weekend session
(smoking it in a glass pipe – some just once, others twice or more). The setting for the
session was an isolated cottage in a rural area. However, two problems were
encountered, one with each sub-session. First, the 2CB sample was reduced to six
for the data analysis, because two psychonauts who took 20mg doses reported no
effects whatsoever after 2 hours, and so both resorted to taking a dose of LSD in
order to overcome their disappointment. They were thus excluded from the analysis,
which was intended to produce an ‘effect profile’ for 2CB alone. Some psychonauts
also consumed moderate amounts of cannabis, nicotine and/or alcohol either before
or during the session. Since such recreational drug use was part of these
participants’ normal behaviour, and since the researchers were invited observers, this
‘contamination’ had to be accepted – though all psychonauts agreed not to consume
any other drugs (unless, as was the case with the 2CB, no effects were experienced
after a reasonable period of time had elapsed). Second, respondents reported
greater difficulties with reporting the effects of DMT compared with 2CB due to the far
shorter duration of the experience (for instance, they were somewhat more likely to
indicate ‘don’t know’ for DMT effects than for 2CB effects). After inhaling DMT
smoke, effects came on and peaked in about 10 seconds (the onset phase), lasting
about 10-20 minutes (main phase), before tailing off with diminishing effects for
another 5-15 minutes (residual phase). By contrast, after swallowing the 2CB, the
‘wait’ for effects varied from 30 to 90 minutes for different psychonauts, thereafter
increasing fairly rapidly for another 30-60 minutes (onset phase); the subsequent
main intoxication phase then lasted for 3-5 hours – with most psychonauts reporting a
very sudden termination of the experience, and a residual phase of weak,
diminishing effects for about 1-2 hours. Thus, the very short duration of the DMT
experience means that there was less time to contemplate the effects, and less
information to reflect upon afterwards.
25
The small number of psychonauts participating in the session was naturally
determined by the voluntary nature of the event, but were also sufficient for research
purposes at that time – namely, developing both the methodology, and a reporting
format for the mass of findings generated by the methods (future studies will of
course need to collect data from far larger samples than this). The researcher was
invited to monitor and investigate the effects of these drugs as on previous
occasions, and was assisted on this session by a second researcher. The research
instruments employed were earlier versions of the present instruments, the main
differences being the type of effect items employed (though there is substantial
overlap), and the utilisation of a 3-point intensity scale - none, noticeable, and strong
(noticeable has since been divided into weak and clear levels of intensity, and strong
has now been divided into strong and maximum levels of intensity). Data from the
eight respondents was analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. Due to space
constraints, the main findings reported here are based on responses about effects in
the main and residual phases of the intoxication stage, as measured by the third
research instrument (self-report drug effects questionnaire).
4.2 Effect profiles for 2CB and DMT
Charts 8 & 9 provide the numerical summaries for 2CB and DMT respectively. Effects
are listed under the main intoxication phase and residual phase. The main phase is
further divided into physiological, perceptual, affective/conative, cognitive, and social
effects; while the residual phase was monitored at this time by a set of five key ‘after
effects’. Also, at this stage of development, perceptual and social effects did not
have directional indicators which could be checked, though the direction of other
effects is indicated by a plus or minus sign (both if mixed effects are reported) –
generally representing a more/less or better/worse dichotomy. At the general level, it
can be seen that physiological effects and cognitive effects were typically noticeable
but not strong for each drug, while other groups of effects were typically strong or
noticeable for 2CB. By contrast, the other groups of effects were typically just
noticeable for DMT – with some perceptual and conative effects being hardly reported
at all In short, keeping in mind the greater difficulties the psychonauts had when
reporting on DMT, these findings still strongly suggest that 2CB has a much broader
range of effects compared with DMT (or at least more higher-intensity effects).
Turning to the direction of the effects, it can be seen that most consensual effects
are in the same direction for each drug – for example, mood changes (up), self-
awareness (increased), and verbal skills (reduced) – with the remaining consensual
effects not exhibiting any polarised differences in direction (i.e. directional
differences on consensual effects between the two drugs are based on comparisons
where one drug is primarily associated with a positive or negative directional effect,
while the other drug is associated with a mixture of positive and negative directional
effects). Regarding lower consensus effects, the two drugs differed in directional
indicators on just one effect. That is, among those experiencing effects on digestion,
2CB users found their digestive system became more uncomfortable, while DMT
users found it became more comfortable.
Effect profiles are based on shorter verbal summaries of the effects reported by a
majority of psychonauts, and therefore adopt a cut-off point above a consensus of
half - i.e. an effect reported at the noticeable or stong levels of intensity by at least
five psychonauts. Chart 10 presents the preliminary effect profiles for DMT and 2CB,
employing a structure and format which should allow standardised and more
meaningful comparisons of the effects of these two drugs – including main and
26
residual phases; 30 categories of main effects organised into five general classes of
effect; two levels of consensus on these effects; and three levels of intensity.
27
CHART 8: SUM MARY OF SELF- RATINGS OF 3 0 EFFECTS OF 2CB
LEVEL OF DRUG EFFECT TYPE OF
EFFECT
None Noticable Strong (DK)
A. MAIN PHASE
PHYSIOLOGICAL {Varied - 3
Muscular tension 0 4 2 (0) { Relaxed - 2 Tense - 1
Temperature 0 4 2 (0) Warmer - 5 Colder - 1
Pulse 1 3 1 (1) Faster - 2 Varied– 2
Breathing 1 3 2 (0) Faster - 2 Slower - 3
Digestion 4 2 0 (2) Comfortable - 1 Un- 3
PERCEPTION
Vision 0 0 6 (0)
Touch 0 1 5 (0)
Hearing 0 3 2 (1)
Balance 0 2 4 (0)
Smell 2 3 0 (1)
Taste 0 5 0 (1)
EMOTION/DRIVES
Mood 0 2 4 (0) Good - 6 Bad - 0
Intuition 0 2 3 (1) Strong - 5 Weak - 0
Libido 0 2 4 (0) Increased - 6
Reduced - 0
Fear 4 1 1 (0) Reduced - 2 Increase
0
Hunger 2 5 0 (0) Reduced - 5 Increase
0
COGNITION
Self-awareness 0 4 1 (1) Less - 1 More - 4
Verbal skill 0 5 1 (0) Less - 5 More - 1
Time perception 0 4 2 (0) Less - 3 More - 3
Logical thought 0 5 1 (0) Less - 3 More - 3
Short-term memory 1 3 1 (1) Less - 3 More - 1
SOCIAL INTERACTION
Communication 1 3 2 (0)
Group behaviour 1 3 2 (0)
Empathy 0 2 4 (0) Less - 1 More – 5
B. RESIDUAL PHASE
Mood 0 2 3 (1) Up - 5 Down - 0
Thought 0 3 3 (0) Intuitive - 4 Rational 2
Consciousness 0 3 3 (0) Clear - 6 Clouded - 0
Energy 0 4 2 (0) High - 5 Low - 1
Sociability 1 2 3 (0) Extrovert 4 Introvert 1
28
CHART 9: SUM MAR Y OF SELF- RATINGS OF 3 0 EFFECTS OF DMT
LEVEL OF DRUG EFFECT TYPE OF
EFFECT
None Noticable Strong (DK)
A. MAIN PHASE
PHYSIOLOGICAL
Muscular tension 0 4 3 (1) Relaxed - 6 Tense - 1
Temperature 1 5 0 (2) Warmer - 5 Colder - 0
Pulse 1 4 0 (3) Faster - 4 Slower - 0
Breathing 2 5 0 (1) Faster - 3 Slower - 2
Digestion 4 2 0 (2) Comfortable - 2 Un- 0
PERCEPTION
Vision 0 0 8 (0)
Touch 0 3 4 (1)
Hearing 1 6 1 (0)
Balance 1 4 1 (2)
Smell 6 2 0 (0)
Taste 6 0 0 (2)
EMOTION/DRIVES
Mood 1 2 5 (0) Good - 7 Bad - 0
Intuition 1 5 1 (1) Strong - 6 Weak - 0
Libido 3 3 2 (0) Increased 5 Reduced 0
Fear 4 3 0 (1) Reduced 3 Increase 0
Hunger 5 3 0 (0) Reduced 3 Increase 0
COGNITION
Self-awareness 0 6 2 (0) Less - 3 More - 5
Verbal skill 1 6 1 (0) Less - 6 More - 1
Time perception 2 5 1 (0) Less - 5 More - 1
Logical thought 3 5 0 (0) Less - 4 More - 1
Short-term memory 5 3 0 (0) Less - 3 More - 0
SOCIAL INTERACTION
Communication 1 6 1 (0)
Group behaviour 1 7 0 (0)
Empathy 2 3 3 (0) Less – 0 More - 6
B. RESIDUAL PHASE
Mood 0 4 4 (0) Up - 8 Down - 0
Thought 0 7 1 (0) Intuitive 6 Rational 2
Consciousness 1 5 2 (0) Clear - 6 Clouded - 1
Energy 2 6 0 (0) High - 4 Low - 2
Sociability 3 5 0 (0) Extrovert 5 Introvert 0
The hallmark effects of DMT and 2CB both included changes in visual perception,
while the DMT experience was also primarily distinguished by enhanced mood and
self-awareness; and the 2CB experience was primarily distinguished by a second set
29
of perceptual alterations - in balance and coordination. Though both drugs shared
the primary effect of changes in visual perception, when interpreted within the context
of periodic monitoring data and psychonauts’ descriptive accounts of their drug
experiences, the specific categories of visual phenomena experienced appear quite
different phenomenologically (underlining the importance of developing more specific
measures of the content and structure of subjective drug effects).
More specifically, DMT produced powerful visual pseudo-hallucinations, which
incorporated major distortions and illusions of form, colour and movement. With eyes
open, people reported psychedelic visions superimposed upon the real world -
including perceiving other people in the room as aliens, androids and/or ancient
warriors. With eyes closed, the DMT hallucinations were maximised, with reports of
visual experiences of moving through vast psychedelic panoramas, including outer
space, forests/jungles and computer-animation-like scenarios. By contrast, 2CB was
more typically associated with less overwhelming visual illusions and enhancements,
such as brighter colours, sharper outlines, and patterns in the visual field. The
hallmark effects of 2CB also included disturbed balance and coordination, though this
was also a main effect of DMT. Furthermore, a confounding variable here is that the
psychonauts tended to move round and engage in various activities during the
several hours of the 2CB experience, whereas during the much shorter DMT
experience, the typical behaviour of psychonauts was to remain seated with eyes
closed.
Beyond changes in visual perception, the main-phase effects largely or wholly shared
by the two drugs can be summarised as follows:
(1) Physiological effects: higher temperature, and mixed effects on muscular tension;
(2) Perceptual effects: changes in hearing and touch (in addition to vision and
balance);
(3) Emotional/conative effects: enhanced mood, intuition, and libido;
(4) Cognitive effects: enhanced self-awareness and reduced verbal skills;
accompanied by reduced logical thinking and time perception for DMT users, and
mixed effects on these two cognitive factors for 2CB users;
(5) Social effects: increased empathy, and changes in communication and group
behaviour.
Conversely, the two main effects which distinguish these drug experiences are as
follows:
(1) 2CB users are more likely than DMT users to report changes in taste perceptions;
(2) 2CB users are more likely than DMT users to report reductions in the hunger
drive.
Since 2CB users are also somewhat more likely to report discomfort in the stomach
and intestines during the main intoxication phase – and gave verbal accounts of
increased hunger in the residual phase - this profile of effects suggests that the entire
digestive process may be disturbed by 2CB.
In short, in terms of general classifications of subjective effects, DMT and 2CB are
more similar than different, sharing the hallmark effect of altered visual perceptions,
and generally having similar physiological, cognitive and social effects – as well as
comparable residual effects. However, the DMT experience is clearly far shorter in
duration, and appears more rooted in the visual hallucinations it induces, which are
far ‘stronger’ than those produced by 2CB. By contrast, 2CB is associated with a far
30
broader range of consensual effects, and there is convergent evidence that it may
cause greater disturbances to digestion than DMT.
Chart 10: Effect profiles for 2CB and DMT: initial models
DMT
CONSENSUS MAIN INTOXICATION PHASE RESIDUAL
PHASE
ALL (7/8) Vision Mood (+) Self-awareness (+) Mood (up)
Touch Comm. Muscular tension (-) Thought (intuitive)
Hearing Group Verbal skills (-) Consciousness (clear)
MOST (5/6) Temperature (+) Intuition (+) Logic (-) Energy (high)
Breathing (+/-) Libido (+) Time (-) Sociability (extrav)
Balance Empathy (+)
2CB
CONSENSUS MAIN INTOXICATION PHASE RESIDUAL
PHASE
ALL (6) Vision Mood (+) Logic (+/-) Thought (intuitive)
Balance Libido (+) Time (+/-) Consciousness (clear)
Empathy (+) Verbal skills (-) Energy (high)
Temperature (+) Muscular tension (+/-)
MOST (5) Breathing (+/-) Intuition (+) Comm. Mood (up)
Hearing Hunger (-) Group Sociability (extrav)
Taste Self-awareness (+) Touch
KEY
Physiological effects are indicated by italics, while the most salient effects are indicated by
underlining – these are (a) those reported by all 8 respondents or reported as a strong effect by
5 or more respondents in the case of DMT; or (b) those reported as a strong effect by 5 or more
respondents in the case of 2CB
Logic = logical thought; time = time perception; comm. = communication; group = group
behaviour
31
4.3 Interim conclusions and future research
To distort a cliché, the science of psychonautics is not so much in its infancy as in a
foetal position in the womb of intellectual thinking. Resources are urgently required to
expand theory and research in this field. Just as researchers need to devote more
attention to the subjective effects of drugs in their studies of drug users, policy-
makers and service providers also need to incorporate the findings of
phenomenological research on drugs into the planning and delivery of their strategies
and interventions (Newcombe 2008). If this call is not heeded, we are in severe
danger of developing a drug policy which lacks a fundamental cornerstone:
understanding of what drugs really do, and why people really want them.
Finally, an urgent area for future research is the enormous but essential task of
relating models of subjective effects to theories of how drugs affect the electro-
chemical processes of the brain. Depending upon the degree of sophistication of our
theories, this would eventually allow us to predict many subjective effects of a drug on
the basis of its chemical structure and psychopharmacological action – and vice-
versa.
The broader implications and some particular conclusions of the psychonautics model
will be further addressed in a forthcoming companion paper this year.
32
REFERENCES & SOURCES
OVERVIEWS & MODELS
Blom, J. (2009). A Dictionary of Hallucinations. ISBN 978-1-4419-1222-0.
Cohen P. (1995). Drug effects: we need more theory. Addiction Research, 3, i-iii (editorial).
Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence (1997). Drug Abuse Briefing. London: ISDD.
McKenna T. (1992). Food of the Gods: a radical history of plants, drugs and evolution. London:
Rider.
Newcombe R (1999). Psychonautics: a model and method. Paper presented at Club Health 2000:
1st International Conference on Night-Life, Substance Use and Related Health Issues. Royal
Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands (10-12/11/99)
Newcombe R. (2008). "Ketamine Case Study: The Phenomenology of a Ketamine Experience".
Addiction Research & Theory 16 (3): 209. doi:10.1080/16066350801983707
Rhodes T. & Quirk A. (1995). Forbidden pleasures: drugs and sexual desire. Druglink, 10(6),
13-15.
Rudgley R. (1998). The Encyclopaedia of Psychoactive Substances. London: Little Brown.
Saunders N. (1997). Ecstasy Reconsidered. London: Neals Yard [originally E for Ecstasy, 1993 ]
Shulgin A. & Shulgin A. (1992). PIHKAL: a chemical love story. Transform Books.
Solowij N. (1998). Cannabis and Cognitive Functioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Stafford P. (1992). Psychedelics Encyclopaedia (third edition). Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher
Turner D.M. (1994). The Essential Psychedelic Guide. San Francisco: Panther Press.
Tyler A. (1995). Street Drugs (3rd edition). London: New English Library (Hodder &
Stoughton).
Weil A. & Rosen W. (1983). From Chocolate to Morphine: understanding mind-active
drugs. Yale CT: Yale University Press.
Wilson R. (1983). Prometheus Rising. Falcon Press.
Zinberg N. (1984). Drug, Set and Setting: the basis for controlled intoxicant use. Yale University
Press.
KEY STUDIES OF SELF-REPORTED DRUG EFFECTS
Atha J. & Blanchard S. (1997). Regular Users: self-reported drug consumption patterns
and attitudes towards drugs among 1333 regular cannabis users. Wigan: Independent Drug
Monitoring Unit (Freepost NWW11111, Wigan WN2 3ZZ)
Lenton S., Boys A. & Norcross K. (1997). Raves, drugs and experience: drug use by a
sample of people who attend raves in Western Australia. Addiction, 92, 1327-1338.
Liester M., Grob C., Bravo G. & Walsh R. (1992). Phenomenology and sequelae of 3,4-
methylenedioxymethamphetamine use. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 180, 345-352.
O'Dwyer T. & Raistrick D. (1994). The phenomenology of ecstasy use. British Journal of
Psychiatry
Parker H., Aldridge J. & Measham F. (1998). Illegal Leisure. London: Routledge.
Release (1997). Drugs and dance survey: an insight into the culture. London: Release
Solowij N., Hall W. & Lee N. (1992). Recreational MDMA use in Sydney: a profile of Ecstasy
users and their experiences with the drug. British Journal of Addiction, 87, 1161-1172.
33
VARIOUS ARTICLES ON SELF-REPORTED DRUG EFFECTS
Becker H. (1963). Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
Buffum J. & Moser C. (1986). MDMA and human sexual function. Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs, 18, 355-360.
Bunce R. (1979). Social and political sources of drug effects: the case of bad trips on
psychedelics. Journal of Drug Issues, Spring 1979.
Curran H. & Travill R. (1997). Mood and cognitive effects of 3,4-
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,’ecstasy’): weekend high followed by mid-week low.
Addiction, 92, 221-32.
Downing J. (1986). The psychological and physiological effects of MDMA on normal
volunteers. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 18, 335-40.
Eysenck H. (1980). The Causes and Effects of Smoking. London: Temple Smith.
Freud S. (1963). The Cocaine Papers. Vienna: Dunquin Press
Greenfield S. (1998). Brain drugs of the future. British Medical Journal, 317, 1698-1701.
Grinspoon, L. & Hedblom P. (1975). The Speed Culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Grinspoon L. & Bakalar J. (1981). Psychedelic Drugs Revisited. New York: Basic Books.
Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence (1997). Drug Notes series. London: ISDD.
Klee H.(1997) (Ed). Amphetamine Misuse: International Perspectives on Current Trends.
Harwood Academic Books [ISBN 90-5702-079-3]
Lifeline (1996). Potology: Guide to the Science of Cannabis and the Sociology of Getting
Stoned. Manchester: Lifeline Publications [and various other booklets and leaflets]
Martin W. & Fraser H. (1961). A comparative study of physiological and subjective effects
of heroin & morphine administered IV in postaddicts. Lexington: NIMH, Addiction Research
Center.
Newcombe (1996). A case study of the effects of ecstasy use at a rave. Liverpool: 3D
Research Bureau
Newcombe R. (1996). A guide to drug-related paranoia. Liverpool: 3D Research Bureau.
Newcombe R. (1998). Drug prevalence surveys, 1965-97. Liverpool: 3D Research Bureau.
Newcombe R. (2001). Wizology: Guide to the Science of Stimulant Amphetamines and the
Sociology of Speeding. Manchester: Lifeline Publications.
Newcombe R. (2005). Tripology: A Guide to Mind-Bending Drugs. Manchester: Lifeline
Publications.
Novak W. (1980). High Culture: marijuana in the lives of Americans. MA: Cannabis
Institute of America.
O’Callaghan J. (1997). Assessing Neurotoxicity of Drugs of Abuse. USA: National Institute of
Drug Abuse (mongraph).
O’Neill D. (1998). Benzodiazepines and driver safety. The Lancet, 352, 1324-25.
Orford J. (1985). Excessive Appetites: a psychological view of the addictions. Wiley:
Chichester.
Parry A. (1992). Taking heroin maintenance seriously: the politics of tolerance. Lancet, 339,
p.350.
Peele S. (1985). The Meaning of Addiction. Lexington Books.
Peroutka S. (1990). Ecstasy: the clinical, pharmacological, and neurotoxicological effects of
the drug MDMA. Boston: Kluwer.
Peroutka S., Newman H. & Harris H. (1988). Subjective effects of MDMA in recreational
users. Neuropsychopharmacology, 1, 273-277.
Siegel R. (1989). Intoxication: life in pursuit of artificial paradise. New York: Dutton.
Smith D. et al. (eds) (1979). Amphetamine Use, Misuse and Abuse. Boston, Mass: G.K. Hall.
Stanton M. (1976). Drug flashbacks: additional findings. International Journal of Addictions,
11, 53- 69.
Tart C. (1971). On Being Stoned: a psychological study of marijuana intoxication. Palo Alto,
Calif: Science & Behaviour.
34
Tart C. (Ed)(1972). Altered States of Consciousness. NY: Doubleday
Weil A. (1972). The Natural Mind: an investigation of drugs and the higher consciousness.
London: Jonathan Cape (revised edition, 1986).
Zinberg N. & Weil A. (1969). Cannabis: the first controlled experiment. New Society, 13 (329),
84-6.
AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL, FICTIONALISED AND OTHER PERSONAL ACCOUNTS
Burroughs W. Snr. (1977). Junky. Penguin (originally: W. Lee (1953), Junkie. Ace Books)
Burroughs, W. Jnr. (1971). Speed. London: Sphere Books
Castaneda C. (1974). The Teachings of Don Juan: a Yaqui Way of Knowledge [& other books]
Cocteau J. (1930). Opium. (paperback edition, N.E.L., 1972).
De Quincey T. (1822). Confessions of an English Opium Eater. London: MacDonald.
Huxley A. (1954). The Doors of Perception. New York: Harper.
Huxley A. (1956). Heaven and Hell. Penguin (1971).
Jay M. (ed) (1999). Artificial Paradises: a Drugs Reader. London: Penguin
Leary T. et al. (1964). The Psychedelic Experience. Citadel Press.
Leary T. (1970). The Politics of Ecstasy. London: MacGibbon & Kee.
Leary T. (1977). Neuropolitics. Los Angeles: Starseed/Peace Press
Lilly J. (1972). The Centre of the Cyclone: an autobiography of inner space. London: Marion
Boyars
Ludlow F. (1857). The Hasheesh Eater. New York: Harper.
Parry M. (ed.) (1974). Dream Trips: an astounding fantasy anthology of weird drug tales. St.
Albans: Panther.
Pirsig R. (1991). Lila: an inquiry into morals. London: Black Swan [metaphysics of subjective]
Shulgin A. & Shulgin A. (1997). TIHKAL: the Continuation. Transform Books.
Siegel R. (1994). Whispers: the voices of paranoia. New York: Crown.
Stahl J. (1995). Permanent Midnight. Abacus
Stewart T. (1987). The Heroin Users. Pandora.
Strausbaugh J. & Blaise D. (1991). The Drug User – Documents 1840-1960. New
York: Blast Books / Dolphin Moon Press.
Thompson, H. (1971). Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Paladin.
35
