coi
{vindu} as written in the gimste appears extremely noun-ish, and seems to implicitly contain a {ka'e}, which I find undesirable. If the definition were reworded to make it seem more "active", then tacking on ka'e (or -ka'e in a lujvo) would produce the current definition, which is more flexible.
Current definition:
vindu = x1 is poisonous/venomous/toxic/a toxin to x2.
Suggested definition:
vindu = x1 intoxicates/is a toxin affecting x2.
vindu is something that is capable (kakne) of intoxicating an organism (x2) under normal circumstances (e.g. the lack of antidote in it).
Also, are toxins intrinsically related to their effects? Can we say that something is a toxin if it *does nothing*? I'd also suggest throwing in an x3, a property of the x2, which is the effect of the toxin. The structure of this new vindu is thus parallel to {xajmi}.
Furthermore, {vindu} as defined makes it seem to have an unnecessarily negative connotation. I feel that this word could be far more useful and flexible if made a bit more general, along the lines of "x1 is a substance/chemical unnaturally present/not normally in such levels in x2 with effects x3."
If {vindu} is more active, then it can be used to construct lujvo for inebriation and use of other substances such as marijuana: {xalselvindu}, {marnyselvindu}.
This lujvo would equally include the effect place and would typically have the structure: "rodyselvindu = x1 does (intention-agnostic) x2 (ka) under the influence of substance broda".
The old definition of {vindu} is achieved with {vidyka'e}, "x1 is a toxin/poison to x2 with potential effect(s) x3."
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o