[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

They really are, though. The high they produce is a symptom of their toxicity. Scientifically speaking, they're toxic.

Nope. I disagree fundamentally.

Black mold makes you hallucinate too. Just because mushrooms don't kill you (in theory) doesn't mean they aren't toxic. A lot of people vomit after ingesting them.

This is because it causes nausea as part of the high, not some kind of toxic shock reaction.

Their bodies try to get rid of the substance. That's a sign of toxicity if ever there was one. They're fungus. They are literally a toxic substance with euphoric side-effects.

Sorry broham you are wrong in this one.

Here, from one of those "science" websites (shroomery.org)
Psilocybin does not qualify as a highly toxic substance when one uses traditional measures of acute toxicity such as the LD 50 (the dose required to kill 50% of experimental animals, usually rats.) Psilocybin has an LD 50 of 280mg/kg. In comparison, the LD 50’s of LSD, THC (the active compound in marijuana), and mescaline are 30mg/kg, 42mg/kg, and 370 mg/kg. Thus, when death is considered as the toxic endpoint, psilocybin is one of the least toxic of the hallucinogens.

you realize that dose would require eating pounds of mushrooms yes?

we are arguing semantics now. Sure, EVERYTHING can kill you at some dose, even WATER. However, there is a common misconception that psilocybin mushrooms are "poisonous" and that the high is some kind of effect from this poision like a venom or something. Nonsense. It is just a psychoactive experience caused by ingesting psilocybin. It is not in any way a toxic reaction, like say the hallucinations that can accompany a snake bite. Again the throwing up part is not because of being poisoned, it is just part of the initial high. Is what it is. When people throw up from drinking too much alcohol btw it is not the body having some kind of toxic reaction, rather it is simply because alcohol causes an extreme imbalance in the fluids in the inner ear, throwing up from alcohol has nothing to do with being poisoned, its more like a chemically induced form of motion sickness. Again, you are smarter than this i know it

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

I already said mushrooms are NOT necessarily SAFE just because they aren't toxic or can't directly kill you. As with any psychoactive substance, the EFFECT of the high can cause problems for people. However that is very different from something being in and of itself poisonous or toxic.

I am not advocating people start consuming psilocybin, but we also should speak truthfully about what exactly psilocybin is and what it isn't

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

if ones are not ready to explore themselves at the deepest existential level then they should NOT eat mushrooms. mushrooms are SPIRITUAL.

its not a party drug. folks should proceed with caution, the subconscious mind when revealed can have serious psychological impact.

I think this is worth repeating here

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

While you're talking science fine I'm not sure the actual experience of mushrooms is the same as you're suggesting. Sure, LSD has this effect, but I have honestly never seen anyone have a negative experience "coming down" from consuming psilocybin. I think you have the right idea, but I'm not sure the math totally adds up here.



Like i was saying...



Did you read the link I PM'd you? Several studies aside from that one strongly suggest the opposite to be true, that ingesting psilocybin can have a POSITIVE impact on neurochemical depression disorders. It can BALANCE the neurochemicals, not put them out of whack which indeed you are right LSD and other stronger hallucinogens can do..



Like i said above, personally I doubt this has ANYTHING to do with the chemistry of psilocybin itself, rather is a strictly PSYCHOLOGICAL rather than NEUROCHEMICAL experience you are having. Perhaps you are not fully ready for what your Vision showed you, perhaps going through a depressive episode is what the Vision wants to show you. Sometimes we are only able to heal our psychological wounds by unpacking the baggage, so sometimes psilocybin might be helping us towards healing by pushing us through our psychological ups and downs.

Again studies have found that many people, even in a laboratory setting, actually leave a psilocybin experience feeling almost supernaturally HAPPY and POSITIVE. One study found this effect can last for over a YEAR or more!!

Part of what psilocybin does is it increases brain activity, streamlines thinking. If there are parts of one's thought processes that are negative, psilocybin will activate this in hypermode because one's might have used a lot of their psychic energy to BLOCK it rather than HEAL it. This is precisely why in parts of Europe hallucinogens are used in combination with psychotheraphy in order to help people deal with post traumatic stress and anxiety disorders.. It helps them really go deeply through buried psychological drama. It is cleansing. Sometimes cleansing can hurt at first, disenfecting wounds might sting, even if these wounds are strictly psychological.

Like I said, mushrooms are not necessarily for everyone or all the time, nor should they be.

Dammit, I wrote a great, diplomatic post and then my phone just shut down. Damned blast!

Anyway, in short it was about how you were speaking from a "spiritual" perspective about "visions" and quests, (not trying to be insulting, just brief — I actually respect that perspective and I've had a number of life changing, beautiful experiences on mushrooms) and how I'm speaking from a technical bd scientific perspective about what is actually taking place in the brain.

My perspective is full of words like "depression" (the resulting from the seratonin depletion following a trip, because that's technically what is occurring in the brain even if it doesn't feel like depression to everyone) and "toxic," but that doesn't mean I don't fully support the continued study of the effects of psil on mental health disorders.

Point being: we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this, because of our respective frames of mind and inclinations of thought. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what you're saying.

Blah.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Nope. I disagree fundamentally.



This is because it causes nausea as part of the high, not some kind of toxic shock reaction.



Sorry broham you are wrong in this one.



you realize that dose would require eating pounds of mushrooms yes?
[/i]
we are arguing semantics now. Sure, EVERYTHING can kill you at some dose, even WATER. However, there is a common misconception that psilocybin mushrooms are "poisonous" and that the high is some kind of effect from this poision like a venom or something. Nonsense. It is just a psychoactive experience caused by ingesting psilocybin. It is not in any way a toxic reaction, like say the hallucinations that can accompany a snake bite. Again the throwing up part is not because of being poisoned, it is just part of the initial high. Is what it is. When people throw up from drinking too much alcohol btw it is not the body having some kind of toxic reaction, rather it is simply because alcohol causes an extreme imbalance in the fluids in the inner ear, throwing up from alcohol has nothing to do with being poisoned, its more like a chemically induced form of motion sickness. Again, you are smarter than this i know it

Did I say poison? Shouldn't have said poison. But they are toxic, have a toxicity level, etc. They may be totally spiritual, but they're also totally toxic (if less toxic than mescaline, apparently.) But "less toxic than mescaline" is still... y'know... Toxic. Stop thinking of it as some loaded word and accepted it as a scientific measure of a chemical or compound's "harmfulness."

I once took one Percocet and one Valium, and my friend, just for kicks, called the poison control hotline and told them. They took him dead seriously, and told him to get me to the emergency room. I was more sober than I'd been all year. That toxic shit is just the language of the establishment.

[Severian]

Think of it this way: Do mushrooms intoxicate you? Well of course they do. Therefore, they have toxic properties. Get it? Toxic? Intoxication? See how one word is, like, inside the other?

YOU're smarter than THIS, and I know it.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

by the way based on the LD50 you posted it would take approximately 3 POUNDS of dried mushrooms! considering the psychoactive dose is generally around 1-2 GRAMS I suppose its safe to safe that psilocybin is indeed not poisonous. Indeed it would take 21 grams of pure psilocybin....

you are mistaking the term 'toxic' with the term 'psychoactive'. Chlorine bleach is toxic, is it also psychoactive? See the difference there? the therapeutic window for psilocybin is very very safe..

come on man that is middle school mistake! Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and actually think this through..

please. I am enjoying the discussion but we need to be on at least a similar page here

Originally Posted by Severian

Did I say poison? Shouldn't have said poison. But they are toxic, have a toxicity level, etc. They may be totally spiritual, but they're also totally toxic (if less toxic than mescaline, apparently.) But "less toxic than mescaline" is still... y'know... Toxic. Stop thinking of it as some loaded word and accepted it as a scientific measure of a chemical or compound's "harmfulness."

BUT THAT IS ENTIRELY THE CRUX OF THE SEMANTICS HERE. WHY DO YOU SAY PSYCHOACTIVE IS SYNONYMOUS WITH HARMFUL? very different terms there.. if the LD50 of psilocybin is 21 GRAMS and the psychoactive dose is around 1.5 MILLIGRAMS I think its safe to say that we can't call psilocybin harmful in its natural forms unless you know people who eat mushrooms BY THE POUND

I once took one Percocet and one Valium, and my friend, just for kicks, called the poison control hotline and told them. They took him dead seriously, and told him to get me to the emergency room. I was more sober than I'd been all year. That toxic shit is just the language of the establishment.

Yeah, duh, pharmaceuticals kill people all the time, plus the poison control center doesn't know how truthful one is to the DOSAGE when one is self reporting. Also, its probably standard protocol. Stop being so silly, really now.

Originally Posted by Severian

and how I'm speaking from a technical bd scientific perspective about what is actually taking place in the brain.

I quoted and shared plenty of science, sometimes i wonder if you are as skilled at actually READING people's posts as you are at writing very long ones????? Indeed in what ways is psilocybin toxic to the brain? what harm does ingesting psilocybin to the brain? That is why it is PSYCHOACTIVE, not necessarily toxic. Toxicity would imply brain damage, which btw is what say meth or alcohol abuse does to the brain. Hence why earlier I said psilocybin does not cause brain damage.

My perspective is full of words like "depression" (the resulting from the seratonin depletion following a trip, because that's technically what is occurring in the brain even if it doesn't feel like depression to everyone) and "toxic," but that doesn't mean I don't fully support the continued study of the effects of psil on mental health disorders.

Again, that is the whole damn conversation. Psilocybin doesn't have the same seratonin dumping effect that say LSD has. Its an entirely different psychoactive experience. Like i said, speaking anecdotally, you possible experience something like depression because PSYCHOLOGICALLY that is how you're reacting to the PSYCHOACTIVE experience. It is NOT the neurochemistry. Don't blame the seratonin, its your psychology

Point being: we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this, because of our respective frames of mind and inclinations of thought. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate what you're saying.

Which is fine, however when it does come to the SCIENCE here we need to find some kind of common ground, and frankly I think you aren't investigating this enough. Remember our conversation about cannabinoids earlier? You were mistaken then, could it just be possible that you are mistaken now no matter how much to entrench yourself in your position? I don't mean to argue, but science is science!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

to summarize succinctly

1) there is a difference between toxic and psychoactive by every definition. toxicity harms the body and the brain, psychoactivity is when a chemical is similar to natural neurochemicals and so activates parts of the brain. very very different ideas. can some psychoactive substances also be toxic? YES OF COURSE, but that is where LD50 and a therapeutic ratio comes into play. Would you say cannabis is toxic? Serious question.

here is the definition of toxic. describes a chemical or material that has the ability to seriously injure biological tissue Psilocybin does not have an ability to injure biological tissue unless consumed in EXTREME quantities..

2) psilocybin acts differently on the brain than LSD or other hallucinogens so we can't generalize. Yes it acts on seratonin receptors but not in the same way as LSD and it also doesn't bind with dopamine receptors like LSD. Further psilocybin acts on receptors in different regions of the brain than LSD does... TOTALLY DIFFERENT PHARMACODYNAMICS

3) everyone is different but my only beef here is this idea you expressed of mushrooms being "poisonous" and that the effects are somehow a toxic reaction? So is that what smoking weed is too? This is a classic high school myth. Psilocybin is PSYCHOACTIVE, the high is just that a high. It is not some kind of toxic reaction. The body is not harmed or reacting to something harmful. its simply what psilocybin does. Indeed some smart people have suggested its been an integral part of human evolution, that we have evolved in part by consuming psychoactive substances such as psilocybin precisely because we have observed it causes the brain to literally expand in function and neuroplasticity..

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLES I POSTED

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

here is a great google search on some more in depth scientific literature worth reading

[Rob Instigator]

gateway to relaxation

[Severian]

I'm not saying psychoactive = toxic. The word psychoactive simply describes any substance that alters or causes changes in the brain.

And I'm not saying "toxic" = harmful. That's the definition of the word. If you want to get really picky about it then sure, psilocybin is not "toxic" in and of itself, but it has toxic properties. Again, if it intoxicates, it has a toxicity level ... You can argue with me about this all you want, and you can say "...but that would require..." ... But if the question is, "Are psilocybin mushrooms toxic, yes or no," the answer is yes. Yes. Regardless of how much it would take to cause harm, regardless of any opinions you may have, you're arguing about the very definition of words here.

Originally Posted by From the first sentence on the first site I found searching Google quickly on my phone (eMedicine):

Hallucinogenic mushroom toxicity is not a new phenomenon

What exactly is the problem here? Is it that you don't know what the word means, or is it that you disagree with the scientific and medical language surrounding the topic of substances and intoxication? You're acting like this is my argument, but I have zero investment in of any of this. I just don't know how to respond when you call my intelligence into question for saying that an intoxicant is toxic.

And for the record, I have read your posts, but when you imply that I'm saying something I've never said (by, say, pointing out that psychoactive and toxic are different things, as though I ever suggested anything to the contrary) I have a hard time caring about the rest of what you're writing. When you're entire premise is based on a misunderstanding, I want to nip that in the bud.

[Severian]

What I think is happening here is that you're reading "toxic" as "bad." But it's valueless. Again, it's a cold, clinical word.

And you have to remember that the scientific and medical communities don't operate under the presupposition that mushrooms are **spiritual. When talking about the pharmacological effects of a substance in the body, there is a taxonomy in place to categorize and define the effects of substances. You have to be open to the fact that the established scientific view of mushrooms is irrevocably tied up in the legality of their consumption. Therefore, what we call a "high", or you call a "quest", is in cold laboratory terminology, called "toxicity." The people who study these drugs and establish these terms view the mushroom "highs" you and I have had — the ones we cherish in our memories — as BAD things.

You seem to have a lot of extremely one sided views on a lot of topics, SFAD. I respect your position here, and I understand where you're coming from, because frankly, in my personal experience, mushrooms have been largely a ton of fun, but that's not how the medical establishment or scientific community views them, or their effects.

By arguing so intensely against the words I've used, you've managed to sound rather egocentric, as though your experience is THE experience. But most of the world still views these things as highly illegal, dangerous, and yeah, toxic drugs. You can't reasonably punish me for using the sci community's terminology, and you certainly can't reasonably call my intelligence into question for doing so.


(** I could argue just as tirelessly against this adjective as you have against "toxic," only my argument would make sense. What is "spiritual?" (Don't actually answer that... please) ... What evidence supports this word being used as an operational definition of the properties of psilocybin? Saying they're "spiritual" only muddies the waters further by assigning a whole lot of unmeasurable significance to a fucking fungus. I'm not saying they're NOT spiritual (or, rather, that they don't have a history of being used in a spiritual or meditative capacity by cultures and individuals), but you can't have a scientific discussion and then start bandying about words like that. If you want to have a cultural or philosophical discussion about mushrooms, then we can talk about spirituality. But for Christ's sake, choose a door and walk through it!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

I'm not saying psychoactive = toxic. The word psychoactive simply describes any substance that alters or causes changes in the brain.

And I'm not saying "toxic" = harmful. That's the definition of the word. If you want to get really picky about it then sure, psilocybin is not "toxic" in and of itself, but it has toxic properties.

if you haven't noticed getting picky is precisely what i am trying to do

Again, if it intoxicates, it has a toxicity level ... You can argue with me about this all you want, and you can say "...but that would require..." ... But if the question is, "Are psilocybin mushrooms toxic, yes or no," the answer is yes. Yes. Regardless of how much it would take to cause harm, regardless of any opinions you may have, you're arguing about the very definition of words here.

semantics arm wrestling. you aren't technically wrong BUT i have been trying to push this conversation into a deeper detail and so yes we must differentiate between toxic and psychoactive because again toxicity at the degree of detail we are getting at implies biological damage to tissues, something which psilocybin just doesn't do at any of the doses we have been discussing.

What exactly is the problem here? Is it that you don't know what the word means, or is it that you disagree with the scientific and medical language surrounding the topic of substances and intoxication? You're acting like this is my argument, but I have zero investment in of any of this. I just don't know how to respond when you call my intelligence into question for saying that an intoxicant is toxic.

this issue is for this conversation i would prefer we differentiate between psychoactive and toxic.

And for the record, I have read your posts, but when you imply that I'm saying something I've never said (by, say, pointing out that psychoactive and toxic are different things, as though I ever suggested anything to the contrary) I have a hard time caring about the rest of what you're writing. When you're entire premise is based on a misunderstanding, I want to nip that in the bud.

you called psilocybin a "poison" what was i misunderstanding exactly? i am glad you have clarified, why are you getting hostile? what, you can post diatribes and lengthy essays we should all read but if someone posts something at length that is different than your's you don't.care enough to read it? that is your right but frankly irs rude. can we have an honest conversation that you don't mistake as for a pissing contest just once? or are you feeling threatened in some way?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Severian

What I think is happening here is that you're reading "toxic" as "bad." But it's valueless. Again, it's a cold, clinical word.

no its not. yes i understand that at a macro level toxic implies what you say. but if you hadn't noticed this is a micro discussion. i posted the definition of toxic at this level. psilocybin is not neurotoxic, does not cause harm to brain tissues. THAT is why i reject the term toxic for THIS discussion. its an important point. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING BUT STOP BEING SO OBSTINATE AND HEAR ME OUT FOR A CHANGE. its not an attack on you, it just is what it is

And you have to remember that the scientific and medical communities don't operate under the presupposition that mushrooms are **spiritual.

you did realize i posted more science here than you yes? spiritual was a description of the EFFECT of the high, but i have provided plenty of evidence about the underlying SCIENCE but i guess you want to get caught up on the spiritual comment and so disregarded or didn't read anything i posted or checked out any of the links i shared. hey its your loss I FOR ONE ENJOYED THE RESEARCH so i don't mind at all.

When talking about the pharmacological effects of a substance in the body, there is a taxonomy in place to categorize and define the effects of substances. You have to be open to the fact that the established scientific view of mushrooms is irrevocably tied up in the legality of their consumption. Therefore, what we call a "high", or you call a "quest", is in cold laboratory terminology, called "toxicity."

NO. In this conversation and to the degree we are zooming in we are talking about psychoactive effects, the pharmacodynamics of psilocybin. toxicity is simply TOO SIMPLISTIC. zoom in with me you'll enjoy it as much as i did..

you're not wrong in general about toxicity, but try and understand what i am talking about, i know you can if you read what i posted and shared rather than argue petty details to somehow make yourself "right" and me somehow "wrong"

The people who study these drugs and establish these terms view the mushroom "highs" you and I have had — the ones we cherish in our memories — as BAD things.

not necessarily at all. psychoactivity doesn't always have a moral connotation. scientists can study the pharmacodynamics without asserting a moral judgment. and again, at a pharmacodynamic level psilocybin is NOT toxic which is to say DOES NOT CAUSE HARM TO TISSUES. hence the concept of THERAPEUTIC RATIO

You seem to have a lot of extremely one sided views on a lot of topics, SFAD. I respect your position here, and I understand where you're coming from, because frankly, in my personal experience, mushrooms have been largely a ton of fun, but that's not how the medical establishment or scientific community views them, or their effects.

i posted plenty of science, studies, and data. read it. go ahead, pretend this is somehow.about me if it makes you feel smarter or better. i am not the scientist, i didn't conduct the studies. but i do know how to read them, and i know you know how to read them, but i fear you mistake this for some kind of pissing contest too much to actually read the research i shared. fine, but that is your loss.

By arguing so intensely against the words I've used, you've managed to sound rather egocentric, as though your experience is THE experience. But most of the world still views these things as highly illegal, dangerous, and yeah, toxic drugs. You can't reasonably punish me for using the sci community's terminology, and you certainly can't reasonably call my intelligence into question for doing so.


(** I could argue just as tirelessly against this adjective as you have against "toxic," only my argument would make sense. What is "spiritual?" (Don't actually answer that... please) ... What evidence supports this word being used as an operational definition of the properties of psilocybin? Saying they're "spiritual" only muddies the waters further by assigning a whole lot of unmeasurable significance to a fucking fungus. I'm not saying they're NOT spiritual (or, rather, that they don't have a history of being used in a spiritual or meditative capacity by cultures and individuals), but you can't have a scientific discussion and then start bandying about words like that. If you want to have a cultural or philosophical discussion about mushrooms, then we can talk about spirituality. But for Christ's sake, choose a door and walk through it!

haha again i notice you keep arguing about like only one thing i said, spiritual, but YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED ANYTHING ELSE I SAID, SHARED, OR POSTED. that tells me YOU DIDN'T READ THE STUDIES i shared. it tells me you are being half assed about this conversation.

i enjoyed what i learned by the way. i didn't see this as an argument at all but frankly I'm under the impression you don't particularly like me much anymore and so you continue to misconstrue my posts to you as somehow being antagonistic or hostile. not my intent at all. i just wanted to have a very detailed conversation about the pharmacology of psilocybin but i suppose you're just not interested. oh well again i myself.enjoyed learning many new things about how both LSD and psilocybin act on the brain and how they are different

[!@#$%!]

fear is the mind killer
fear is the little death that brings total obliteration

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

fear is the mind killer
fear is the little death that brings total obliteration

you sir, "get" "it".

 

[greenlight]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

shit i had a very frightening two week trip from datura.

this is like strongest shit I have seen. i had the pleasure see few people taking it during my university days and man it was crazy. we had to watch guys for a few days while tripping juts not to leave them on their own. they were talking to people which weren't there, or start taking off clothes on the bus stop, stuff like that. crazy. horrible trips. yeah..castaneda days in the city, hehehe.

[greenlight]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

fear is the mind killer
fear is the little death that brings total obliteration

this

[greenlight]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

In other words, folks shouldn't eat them like smoking a joint or drinking a beer, they should treat it like the Indians do, something altogether SACRED like the Holy Communion.

this

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by greenlight

this is like strongest shit I have seen. i had the pleasure see few people taking it during my university days and man it was crazy. we had to watch guys for a few days while tripping juts not to leave them on their own. they were talking to people which weren't there, or start taking off clothes on the bus stop, stuff like that. crazy. horrible trips. yeah..castaneda days in the city, hehehe.

daturas are not only dangerously pyschoactive but literally dangerous. they actually are a poisonous plant that contains dangerous toxins on top of psychoactive chemicals. people literally die, kids die from accidental ingestion every year because they are a popular garden plant.

when i did it, i drank too much of a potent brew. the effect literally lasted for two weeks, full on trails, visuals, thought distortions, auditory hallucinations, confusion..

by the fifth day i assumed i had ruined my brain, that i had persistent hallucinogen perception disorder and so would have to adjust to a permanent psychedelic life.

i will never forget how over joyed i was somewhere around day 15 when the trails finally subsided and my sensory perception was "normal"

its funny psychedelics are a lot of fun unless they don't ever stop.