Do plants matter?

[shruman]

Man u are so full of shit.

AS has already been stated (here & numerous threads with numerous psuedonyms) ur not interested in discussion or debate only presenting ur own rhetoric & trying to discredit & degrade those who present alternative view points.

I will stop feeding the troll. It should'nt be long till someone notices u & ur gone untill then Im sure we will see a flurry of frantic posts with no substance & no gall to debate issues raised. We will have forgotten u in a week but u will remember us & 6 months time u'll be back with the same old shit.

Bye bye till then.

Edited March 13, 2008 by shruman

[ThunderIdeal]

Do you not feel it is a waste of time to argue with idiots?

heheh

quit the bullshit and start eating mushrooms already onemind

[Vertmorpheus]

So, the question is really "Does anyone else matter?" and you've already made up your mind about that one.

Assumptions based on scant fact are always funny as hell to read though...surely one of the best bits of the internet experience! you've managed to accuse one of the most practical, DTE, responsible and together members here of being "flakey", when we all know hes anything but...especially in contrast to certain others... and you managed to imply that I'm a "druggy"...once again, anyone around here for longer than a week has worked out that whilst I don't care what anyone else does, there's certain things I don't do myself anymore,and havent for a long, long time... for various reasons.Adult, reasonable, logical ones. Rational ones.

But then you're the only "real" person here, right? The rest of us are one dimensional cartoons Greenies, thats classic... lemme guess we're also unwashed dole bludgers? Perennial academics? Social cripples trying to fill the hole inside caused by lack of a social context by whatever means possible, regardless of risk... and then dumb enough to admit to it all in detail just to win a petty little "arguement" in which all other parties have already decided you're a fool anyway?

Doesnt sound like us so much matie... sounds like someone in here though doesn't it?

Enjoy your metaphorical 10 dollar blowie... leave the rest of us to our quality and lasting relationships based on a belief in mutual care and responsibility. Enjoy being "right" too ... most of us settled for happy a while back. You'll learn that though, as you grow up. IF you grow up. Sounds like you've found a few lil behaviours that might just impede your development, somehow.

This place is occasionally lousey with freddy dreadfuls and various other alphabet soup organisations... probably going to incraese given the strong cooperative ethic recently reinforced between our police service and those from a certain superpower, especially those dealing in semi private online communities dealing in illicit information and trains of thought... but that didn't occur to you before you went opening your sour little mouth did it? might be a thought to keep the detailed admissions of clandestine manufacturing of heavily controlled substance to yourself, unless you want to end up forming some quality relationships of your own...and then you'll get to learn ALL about blowjobs and druggies ;) Or you might just get banned for breaking the rules AND being a bit of a unit... and then it's all someone elses problem. mainly yours.

May be a thought to practice taking large dry objects up your arse and consider pulling any sharp teeth with pliers in advance. Sounds FUN, doesn't it? Drugged out gibberish indeed... I value other areas of my life far too highly to jeopardise theyre wellbeing by doing something as irresonsible as manufacturing illegal drugs in my home in the first place, let alone to then get online and wave the flag. Above any drug fun, I value my ability to freely associate, travel, live by my own schedule and not have to worry about burning my loved ones to death, or leaving them to a life without my support and love. Who sounds like a halfwit druggy now, nomind?

You don't like your family, or what? Want to make some Big New Friends do you? be the life of the party? Remember you're dogging on the strongly held beliefs of those that in some cases have a fair bit of information about you, no matter how clever you think youve been about coming up with a BS DOB and other digital trickery.. you could be gone tomorrow... and how we'd all weep... head people and heart people... might have to come up wit ha third tag to stick on yourself matie, as you don't seem to fit into either... any monkey can be taught to count and use a spoon, you're nothing special for working that out.

You might be somewhat more special if you ever realise that no experience takes place in isolation but has to be viewed as an interwoven thread in the rest of your life's cloth... if you sincerely believe that the rest of your life and efforts and dedications have no bearing on your ability to benefit from, enjoy or derive satisfaction from a drug experience, and leaves no lasting impact other than the time spent tripping or high in itself.. the nwhy are you bothering in the first place? it's about the live, not the substances... only hopeless druggies believe otherwise. One cone with mates, or three by yourself... I know which sounds scummier to me.

It's a small pond we have here, and those that make the biggest waves tend to sink to the bottom quite quickly. We can piss and bitch and disagree and get overly personal, all that... thats what mates are for... at the end of the day, even the most different of us are on essentially the same page, or at least in the same book. You're still trying to find the library by the sounds of it.

You'll never understand the value of hard fun, until you learn the value of hard work. Grow up.

There, I'm all out of troll pellets... you'll have to bother one of the other grown ups now.

VM

Edited March 13, 2008 by Vertmorpheus

[Guest shroomnoob]

So, the question is really "Does anyone else matter?" and you've already made up your mind about that one.

I have no doubt that there are quality trippers amongst the riff raff Trouble is, they never participate on my threads and i end up insulting some sensitive twit then have to spend the rest of the thread getting called a troll and asshole for asking a genuine question.

heheh

quit the bullshit and start eating mushrooms already onemind

lol, well said. I am still waiting for my mycelieum to grow

[ThunderIdeal]

you did NOT ask a genuine question.

[Guest shroomnoob]

you've managed to accuse one of the most practical, DTE, responsible and together members here of being "flakey

Which one was that? The one who was talking about magik, relationships with plants and fucking a doorknob?

and you managed to imply that I'm a "druggy"...once again

I have nothing against drug use at all, i use the stuff myself in high doses Doesn;t mean i like listening to drugged out ramblings when i am straight. Keep it for the bong shed.

This place is occasionally lousey with freddy dreadfuls and various other alphabet soup organisations... probably going to incraese given the strong cooperative ethic recently reinforced between our police service and those from a certain superpower, especially those dealing in semi private online communities dealing in illicit information and trains of thought... but that didn't occur to you before you went opening your sour little mouth did it?

Big brother is watching, george bush is a 4th dimensional lizard and there is a conspiracy around the moon landing. Go easy on the bong. The narcs can get my IP address, get a warrant and search my house and find nothing and i will continue to enjoy my shrooms

May be a thought to practice taking large dry objects up your arse and consider pulling any sharp teeth with pliers in advance. Sounds FUN, doesn't it?

Does that turn you on? You seem to have an unhealthy facination with my ass hole.

Above any drug fun, I value my ability to freely associate, travel, live by my own schedule and not have to worry about burning my loved ones to death, or leaving them to a life without my support and love. Who sounds like a halfwit druggy now, nomind?

lol, you

you could be gone tomorrow... and how we'd all weep...

lol

it's about the live, not the substances... only hopeless druggies believe otherwise. One cone with mates, or three by yourself... I know which sounds scummier to me.

I disagree, using drugs to be social is against everything i stand for. It is about the substances and what you can learn from them. Laughing with a bunch of stoners reminds me of highschool and i am glad those days are over. Psychonautics for me is done in solitude, i dont advertise and never use drugs recreationally.

It's a small pond we have here, and those that make the biggest waves tend to sink to the bottom quite quickly. We can piss and bitch and disagree and get overly personal, all that... thats what mates are for... at the end of the day, even the most different of us are on essentially the same page, or at least in the same book. You're still trying to find the library by the sounds of it.

Drama queen

You'll never understand the value of hard fun, until you learn the value of hard work. Grow up.

wtf are you talking about ?

you'll have to bother one of the other grown ups now.

lol, you are about as fully grown as my left nut..

[Guest shroomnoob]

Anywho, i am not interested in coming here for more bitch fighting. I joined to ask some questions on shrooms as i am new to the shroom world and get some growing tips on my viridis that is now 2 years old and will posts pics soon.

It is not my fault that you appear to me like an illiterate, flakey stoner and it is not your fault that i appear to you as an arrogant asshole so i think it best just to ignore one another.

No trolling, just questions so please keep your answers to yourself or if you must release your verbal diarhea then do so but dont expect a response.

The End

[ThunderIdeal]

i don't believe you and i reckon i'll be vindicated in less than five of your posts. you are here to be an arrogant twat because you can't help yourself. btw calling vert illiterate? he has more flair for writing than most of us (you included) will ever have.

[Guest shroomnoob]

Yes, and i am sure he has a bigger penis

[Lachy]

*reads all of the above*

Fecking hell...

Okay, I know that I'm a newbie here (and I'm possibly going be perceived as stepping on some toes; I assure you that is not my intention), but I'll weigh in a bit on the original questions, and stay out of the stuff that seems to have gone a bit off the rails in the posts above.

Do you think that particular species of plant have different effects from other plants containing the same active chemical? I mean, if you use peyote or san pedro the active ingredient is mescaline so if dosed the same way they would have the same effect?

I would say that consuming differing species would have different effects dependent on a multitude of factors. I think primarily, a major issue is that whilst mescaline is the primary substance in question, there's a heap of other active and potentiating substances also present in plants. The chemistry involved is going to be enormously complex. Take into account the complexity of how these chemicals react with neurotransmitters in the human brain, and other effects produced by secondary metabolites... not to mention that we still don't really understand how the phenomenon of perception actually works and how these substances interact with the process. Overall, there's a heap of really complex chemistry at work here. Theoretically, if you tweak one element, the result is going to be different. Taking a measured amount of raw mescaline therefore must have a different effect to consuming the chemical soup that is peyote or san pedro, even if the levels of mescaline are identical.

Of course, all this is before taking into account questions of set and setting, and how this will effect the psychedelic experience. For want of a better term, the "headspace" of the user seems to have a significant component. By way of example, look at alcohol - some people become aggressive drunks, others hug everyone they see. Others do karaoke, some sob into their beer. The psychological makeup of the user has to be taken into account when assessing the effects of any psychoactive substance.

Also, we take pure mescalin, lsd, dmt or psilocybin and forget about the plant it came from the only variations in experience in each drug would be determined by the dose, set and self and the plant has nothing to do with it?

Again, the complexity of the chemistry involved precludes this. Pure DMT, mescaline or whatever, will yield X effect, in theory. However, as stated above, results may vary dependent on other chemicals involved in the mix - and I include the neurochemistry of the individual too. If someone consumes peyote, they're getting all sorts of stuff beyond mescaline, which must alter the effect. Again, consider the individual as well, and their body chemistry.

LSD and DMT made in labs does the job just as well as extracted from nature. A molecule is a molecule. There is nothing man made really because man is part of nature and the molecules he makes are part of nature and i dont think plants have any concious awares or input into the development of these molecules and they are not perfecting any art, merely evolving via natural selection..

Again, you're talking about pure substance vs. mixture. I'll say no more on this beyond: Yes, both options are active. Yes, with the equipment, we could create a purely synthetic mixture that is chemically identical in active principles to a peyote.

However, if you come back to the psychology I mentioned before... a person who lovingly tends to and harvests a psychedelic plant will surely have a different effect to a volunteer who is administered an identical amount of a chemically identical, yet fully synthetic psychedelic compound, if only because the "headspace" is different between the two subjects.

Just my thoughts on the matter. Not exactly gospel, but it makes sense to me.

[ThunderIdeal]

yep that's a fine post. i must say though, i'm interested to hear how anybody can explain how organic mixture of XYZ will produce different effects to identical, synthetic mixture of XYZ, supposing the molecules are identical. is there some way the molecules may actually differ, like the way water from different sources (thought hey are both H2O) can have a different crystalline structure for instance?

the point you make about the immense complexity is interesting though... it makes it seem kind of obsolete to say something like 'yeah, i've experienced peyote, or san pedro, or cubensis, or obtusifolia....'

Edited March 13, 2008 by ThunderIdeal

[Lachy]

i must say though, i'm interested to hear how anybody can explain how organic mixture of XYZ will produce different effects to identical, synthetic mixture of XYZ, supposing the molecules are identical.

Given the complexity of the reaction involved, I'd be more surprised if the effects were identical. Generally, the basic effects of what we could call the "trip" may be similar, because the molecule will have the same general effects on the body. But when we start analysing the subtle nuances of a trip... things get really complex. Subtle variations between indiduals, slightly different body chemistry... even consuming a substance at a different time of day could theoretically have an effect.

is there some way the molecules may actually differ, like the way water from different sources (thought hey are both H2O) can have a different crystalline structure for instance?

If I understand correctly, this is due to minute differences in the positioning of the molecules when frozen. This is more physics than chemistry at work... and again, the complexity involved is quite staggering.

...

I guess this is kind of why I love science... it just keeps finding new complexities and subtleties in the universe, and leaves me going "wow!" at the intricacy of it all. The sheer "bigness" and complexity of the universe is mind expanding in itself, no drugs required.

[Guest shroomnoob]

Thanks.

Generally, the basic effects of what we could call the "trip" may be similar, because the molecule will have the same general effects on the body. But when we start analysing the subtle nuances of a trip... things get really complex.

I am not really concerned with subtle nuances as these would be next to impossible to isolate to a specific variable. I have tripped on dmt many times and each time was different even though it was the same chemical from the same source. The differences between the trips were from setting and self. My different moods, time of day, levels of fatigue, diet etc etc all played their part. However, even though the contents of each trip was different, they were all the classical dmt trip. I wager that tripping on my own from a different stash, including synthetics would give me the same basic dmt trip but the differences again would be based on set and self but the overall trip would be a typical dmt one.

Theoretically, if you tweak one element, the result is going to be different. Taking a measured amount of raw mescaline therefore must have a different effect to consuming the chemical soup that is peyote or san pedro, even if the levels of mescaline are identical.

Again, you are being overly technical.; You could analyse it down to the quantum level and argue that the precense of different molecules create a completely new and complex foundation therefore different trip, but overall, it would still be a typical mescaline trip as it is the mescaline molecule that is similar to a neurotransmitter and that creates the majority of the mind altering effect.

Using words like complexity and chemical soup really is irelevent. Consuming mushrooms mixed in a banana smoothy would be a new soup full of banana complexity with different amino acids and molecules but very few people would debate that it wasnt a typical trip based on psilocybin. Plant materials are complex, but they are no more relevent than comparing the effects on eating a salad filled with plant molecules before consuming a psychedelic. Why is the other plant material in cactus or mushroom any more complex than that of a tomato or banana? Obviously there are other minor psychoactive alkaloids along with the key psychadelic so we can reduce the complexity of the vegetable soup to 3 or 4 active compunds and do away with all the other junk that does little if anything with regards to altering brain chemistry to a point it alters consciousness significantly different to that of the typical trip.

i'm interested to hear how anybody can explain how organic mixture of XYZ will produce different effects to identical, synthetic mixture of XYZ, supposing the molecules are identical.

They cant without invoking unfounded claims of spirits, metaphysics and pseudoscience. The molecules are identical, it doesnt matter how they came about.

[Lachy]

My different moods, time of day, levels of fatigue, diet etc etc all played their part. However, even though the contents of each trip was different, they were all the classical dmt trip. I wager that tripping on my own from a different stash, including synthetics would give me the same basic dmt trip but the differences again would be based on set and self but the overall trip would be a typical dmt one.

Yep, I'd agree with that. However, keep in mind that we still don't know what other compounds may be active in these plants, and how different combinations react differently. Just because mescaline is the primary compound that we're aware of doesn't mean there isn't other active or potentiating compounds at work in the background.

Using words like complexity and chemical soup really is irelevent. Consuming mushrooms mixed in a banana smoothy would be a new soup full of banana complexity with different amino acids and molecules but very few people would debate that it wasnt a typical trip based on psilocybin. Plant materials are complex, but they are no more relevent than comparing the effects on eating a salad filled with plant molecules before consuming a psychedelic. Why is the other plant material in cactus or mushroom any more complex than that of a tomato or banana?

This is quite simple, really. We're talking about pharmacological activity, not say the relatively simple protein breakdown and synthesis or carbohydrate utilisation that are the main reactions that make up the digestion of foodstuffs. Now, I'm sure that you're aware that some chemicals produce measurable effects in humans at tiny levels. We're talking a couple hundred micrograms here. LSD, scopolamine... hell, let's take some toxins to clearly demonstrate my point. Ricin exhibits very clear symptoms of poisoning (ie - death!) at about 500ug. That's not subtle in the slightest in its effect, and yet the dose is miniscule. The fact is, the human body is very sensitive to some chemicals. Esters, for instance, are detectable by scent at absurdly low levels. Denatonium benzoate is so bitter that 10ppm is detectable by taste.

As to your comment about eating a salad before consuming a psychedelic... oddly enough, that could have an effect. I'm sure that you are aware that certain foods can provoke adverse reactions in people who are taking certain medications, or could decrease the effectiveness of a particular medication being taken. I see no reason why the same principle wouldn't apply with psychedelics.

Obviously there are other minor psychoactive alkaloids along with the key psychadelic so we can reduce the complexity of the vegetable soup to 3 or 4 active compunds and do away with all the other junk that does little if anything with regards to altering brain chemistry to a point it alters consciousness significantly different to that of the typical trip.

Who says it has to be only three or four actives? Given the complexity of the reactions involved, there could be many more substances involved. We just don't know at this stage. However, I certainly believe that with time and adequate research, there's no reason why science won't work this out.

QUOTE

i'm interested to hear how anybody can explain how organic mixture of XYZ will produce different effects to identical, synthetic mixture of XYZ, supposing the molecules are identical.

They cant without invoking unfounded claims of spirits, metaphysics and pseudoscience. The molecules are identical, it doesnt matter how they came about.

Well, I just gave you an example, which doesn't require any sort of supernatural... stuff. I'm saying that the plant mixtures and extracts are impure and that other compounds may alter the experience. On top of this, I maintain that the individual consuming the psychoactive in question also has an effect. Set and setting as a psychological component, and individual neurochemistry as a deciding factor in how the substance is metabolised.

Oh, and for the record shroomnoob, I don't believe in the supernatural. At all.

However, my love of science has taught me one thing - it's a big, complex universe that we inhabit, and we sure as hell have a lot to discover.

[Guest shroomnoob]

Yep, I'd agree with that. However, keep in mind that we still don't know what other compounds may be active in these plants, and how different combinations react differently. Just because mescaline is the primary compound that we're aware of doesn't mean there isn't other active or potentiating compounds at work in the background.

Yes, i am not debating that. I am debating that whatever small amounts of other molecules are in there make little if any noticeable difference to a trip for the average tripper.

For example, lets take an old psychonaut who has used lsd, dmt, psilocybin and mescalin many times during his life.

Then we put him in a nice setting and give him an unlabeled substance of one of these drugs so he doesnt know what he is getting.

By the end of the experiment he would be able to distinguish what the dmt trip was, and what was lsd, mecalin and psilocybin.

But i find it highly unlikely that he would be able to tell the difference between dmt extracted from mimosa hostilis root bark or synthetic (if we could mask the smell).

He would be also unable to distinguish between san pedro and peyote or B+ and blue meanie or lsd syntesised from lsa from morning glory seeds or made in a lab.

He would be able to distinguish the charecteristics of each psychadelic but not between the same psychadelic from different sources.

There may be subttle nuances from the other molecules in various plants but not in high enough levels to make a noticable difference.

And let us say that the purpose of psychadelic use was for therapeutic purposes of accessing the subconscious or whatever, any of these psychadelics could be used because it is all roughly the same altered state caused by molecules shaped like neurotransmitters that have roughly the same effect on the central nervous system and the have all been used by various psychologists and psychiatrists for this purpose.

There may very well be slightly different vibrations or feelings from san pedro and peyote, but only a true psychadelic conisseur would pin point the difference but for most it would be the same trip.

Between the psychadelics there are different levels of intensity, they last different lengths of time, come on fast or slow and have different side effects but overall they are psychadelics with roughly the same features so the difference between sources within the same active molecule are negligble.

I guess it is the difference between wine tasters who like picking out the woodyness or fruitiness or pepperiness of the wine and others who think wine is wine, it gets you drunk and it all tastes the same at the end of the night.

[folias]

But i find it highly unlikely that he would be able to tell the difference between dmt extracted from mimosa hostilis root bark or synthetic (if we could mask the smell).

A lot of people I know would be able to... the only way to "really" know is to do some research with test subjects in this area.

Julian.

[Lachy]

I think we're sort of drawing towards the same point here... by and large, I agree with what you're saying. As I was reading through, I was thinking "what about wine tasting?" as an example. Then, lo and behold you had the same thought:

I guess it is the difference between wine tasters who like picking out the woodyness or fruitiness or pepperiness of the wine and others who think wine is wine, it gets you drunk and it all tastes the same at the end of the night.

And therein lies the key. The drinker who is consuming booze to get smashed is a different creature to the drinker who enjoys drinking wine as part of a meal, or who drinks to enjoy the flavour of the wine.

I don't drink a lot of wine so I'll stop with the wine analogy as I don't have the requisite knowledge of its manufacture and defining varietal characteristics. However, I do brew and consume plenty of beer, so I'll stick with what I know. I can assure you there are very clear differences in flavour among what are, to the layperson, "just beer", just as there are diffences with wine varieties.

I could pour you three beers - say; a wheat beer, a lager and an American pale ale. They all look roughly the same, and all have roughly the same proportion of alcohol, residual carbohydrates, and roughly the same hopping rates. Without a doubt, they're all beers, and yes, all will get you drunk at the end of the night, if that's your goal. However, there are very clear differences between them - different malts used, different hops... even slightly different yeast strains. These differences will not seem like much from an analytical point. However, the flavours are remarkably different. Even the mouthfeel is different, as different beers carbonate slightly differently. If you smash each beer down, you may not taste the subtleties. However, if you take your time, and actually allow yourself to properly taste them... you'll see there's a world of difference.

Try it and see.

[Guest shroomnoob]

The drinker who is consuming booze to get smashed is a different creature to the drinker who enjoys drinking wine as part of a meal, or who drinks to enjoy the flavour of the wine.

I completely disagree with this. You have taken a perfectly good analogy and killed it

Getting drunk and tripping are completely different states of mind and the thing is, people really do use psychadelics to get high, shrooms taste toxic, smoking dmt tastes like plastic, and lsd is tasteless and eating raw peyote tastes worse than eating dog shit.

It is all about the trip and not the consumption. And even with wine tasters, they may enjoy drinking it but they get drunk the same way as people who dont give 2 fucks about the taste. The drunken state is no more refined for the taster than it is for the drinker.

A trip is a trip, the methods vary but the fundamental charectistics of psychadelics remain the same with the possibility of minor variations between sources that only the true adept could pin point and even then, would it even be a worthy skill? As long as you are tripping and experience the breakdown of ego for therapeutic purposes it doesnt really matter if one trip is more wavy or flowery or touchy feely or whaterver, they are just minor compared with the overall trip that people seek in the first place.

[Guest shroomnoob]

In essence, i agree with you that there may very well be subtle differences between plants but i question their relevence in light of an overall trip and certainly reject all the shamanistic mumbo jumbo about plant spirits and getting "taught" by plants or communicating with plants and do not downgrade lab produced synthetics.

I would choose LSD made by Hoffman over shrooms grown under my bed.

[Lachy]

I completely disagree with this. You have taken a perfectly good analogy and killed it

Hey, I do what I can, mate.

A trip is a trip, the methods vary but the fundamental charectistics of psychadelics remain the same with the possibility of minor variations between sources that only the true adept could pin point and even then, would it even be a worthy skill? As long as you are tripping and experience the breakdown of ego for therapeutic purposes it doesnt really matter if one trip is more wavy or flowery or touchy feely or whaterver, they are just minor compared with the overall trip that people seek in the first place.

I'll agree with that in general terms. However, I'd say that because psychedelics allow people to explore their mind and to take it - shall we say - for a test drive, the state of mind of the user is always going to be a key component. After all, every mind is different and I'd think you'd have to agree that a person who lovingly grows and cultivates some subs as part of "becoming closer to nature" is entirely different to the teenager who buys some (otherwise identical) "mushies" off a mate "because they can make you see all sorts of crazy shit". It's a totally different headspace that's being explored. The psychedelic is just the way in.

In essence, i agree with you that there may very well be subtle differences between plants but i question their relevence in light of an overall trip and certainly reject all the shamanistic mumbo jumbo about plant spirits and getting "taught" by plants or communicating with plants and do not downgrade lab produced synthetics.

I would choose LSD made by Hoffman over shrooms grown under my bed.

I see no evidence of plant spirits or sentience either. I'm open to people who have evidence to the contrary, but as Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

However, I do recognise that people get pleasure and satisfaction out of growing and harvesting plants. Even if the effect on the resulting psychedelic experience is purely due to individual psychology or a placebo effect, so be it. It works for that particular user, and they feel better for it... so be it. If you'd prefer to use synthetics, so be it. Ultimately, it's your call.

Personally, I can neither condone nor recommend the ingestion of these substances, naturally grown or synthesised in a lab setting. I'd prefer to stick with my beer, thanks very much.

[apothecary]

Do you know what a paragraph is?

For example, lets take an old psychonaut who has used lsd, dmt, psilocybin and mescalin many times during his life.

Then we put him in a nice setting and give him an unlabeled substance of one of these drugs so he doesnt know what he is getting.

By the end of the experiment he would be able to distinguish what the dmt trip was, and what was lsd, mecalin and psilocybin.

But i find it highly unlikely that he would be able to tell the difference between dmt extracted from mimosa hostilis root bark or synthetic (if we could mask the smell).

He would be also unable to distinguish between san pedro and peyote or B+ and blue meanie or lsd syntesised from lsa from morning glory seeds or made in a lab.

This is simply and blatantly incorrect. Obviously you have never compared a B+ cubensis to Copelandia cyancences, or LSD to the LSA complex (this is NOT one alkaloid) or San Pedro to Peyote.

Why not talk to people who are experiencing this hypothetical situation on a frequent basis, instead of just making bullshit up. There is a MASSIVE (read again: not subtle) difference.

I would say the LSA complex of alkaloids bares only a few key resemblances to ingestion of LSD the duration, effects, after effects, side effects are completely different for the two.

San Pedro similar to Peyote in experience? Most definitely NOT.

Even Dona Maria Sabina a Mazatec curandero whos main shamanic experience was with landrace Mexican cubensis strains, could tell the difference when Hoffman presented her with Psilocybin tablets (he told her they contained the spirit of the mushrooms).

You are, once again, talking out of your ass.

[Guest shroomnoob]

This is simply and blatantly incorrect. Obviously you have never compared a B+ cubensis to Copelandia cyancences, or LSD to the LSA complex (this is NOT one alkaloid) or San Pedro to Peyote.

Why not talk to people who are experiencing this hypothetical situation on a frequent basis, instead of just making bullshit up. There is a MASSIVE (read again: not subtle) difference.

I would say the LSA complex of alkaloids bares only a few key resemblances to ingestion of LSD the duration, effects, after effects, side effects are completely different for the two.

San Pedro similar to Peyote in experience? Most definitely NOT.

Even Dona Maria Sabina a Mazatec curandero whos main shamanic experience was with landrace Mexican cubensis strains, could tell the difference when Hoffman presented her with Psilocybin tablets (he told her they contained the spirit of the mushrooms).

You are, once again, talking out of your ass.

Do you know what a paragraph is? lol

I would say the LSA complex of alkaloids bares only a few key resemblances to ingestion of LSD the duration

I have never claimed that lsa is anything like lsd. I was talking about lsd synthesisd from a lsa base derived from nature so you are merley quoting me out of context and responding to a strawman.

(he told her they contained the spirit of the mushrooms).

Well, if some guy told some other guy about the spirit of a mushroom, who am i to question it. lol

[Guest shroomnoob]

Personally, I can neither condone nor recommend the ingestion of these substances, naturally grown or synthesised in a lab setting. I'd prefer to stick with my beer, thanks very much.

I condone it and recommend it

Enjoy your beer..

[Lachy]

You are, once again, talking out of your ass.

I don't believe that. I prefer to say he's "talking from a certain, limited point of view". There's no particular reason for anyone to get hostile, no matter how passionate and heated the debate gets. Personally, I like to leave name calling and personal attacks to the people that populate parliament during Question Time.

Back on track, Sina, I think you're absolutely right in your assessment of differences between Peyote, San Pedro et al. We are dealing with complex mixtures of substances, and the effects from different sources will be strikingly different dependent on the chemical makeup. Of course LSA will be different to LSD. I suspect shroomnoob is just making a too-broad generalisation when discussing these plants.

(Please note, I really, really don't intend any disrespect to any members. I just want a good discussion about what is to me a fascinating topic, without silly name-calling.)

[Guest shroomnoob]

There's no particular reason for anyone to get hostile, no matter how passionate and heated the debate gets.

I know what you mean. I may have an opinion you dont agree with but the way i see it, the bulk of the profanity and ad homs on the forum come from you guys and they call me the troll.

I prefer to say he's "talking from a certain, limited point of view".

If by limited you mean not open to wild speculation based on very little then i would agree with you.