http://www.erowid.org/pl...e/peyote_journal4.shtml

Here is a report of a peyote death. This man was an alcoholic who had liver problems and thats probably why he died when mixing it with peyote. I am not saying its common or unsafe but it can happen. Mescaline is a very safe compound but it has nothing to do with the fact that it is natural. LSD is a very safe compound and it has nothing to do with that its manmade.

Also yes that nausea is not a sign of toxicity as in death so I should rescind that statement. SWIM never gets nausea from lsd but has from mescaline so SWIM wanted to make point that mescaline has more side effects most likely a result from taking a large dose of an alkaloid and other stuff in the plant. Again thats not for everyone but many people report stomach upsets with mescaline less so with lsd. Overall. Not because the alkaloid is necessarily toxic but because theres a bunch being taken at once its just causing some gurgling to go on in the belly and effects receptors involved in nausea.

I just want to point out that peyote has many alkaloids whose safety profile in excessive doses may not always be known in terms of acute toxicity. No one will ever eat that much peyote to know because you get way more mescaline before you ever would reach such a dose. This makes peyote or mescaline very safe. LSD however is just as safe if not more if you compare dose with LD50. That's what I meant when I said mescaline is more toxic then LSD because of LD50. But not by directly comparing but by comparing dose response. I also do think taking peyote is good for you for many reasons. But many things that are good for you are only good for you in certain doses. Vitamins minerals everything is like that. Whether natural or synthetic.

My only real argument concerning their safety then is that mescaline compared to lsd has a worse outlook in terms of ld50 when comparing them in a dose response manner. Thats it. That barely means anything but its true. I am not intentionally spreading "bullshit" or lies but I was not clear enough on what I meant.

Ron69 concerning LSD and long term danger and cancer or effects on children your line of thinking is way off. LSD is not carcinogenic because it doesn't alter DNA. Carcinogens often directly mutate DNA. Or directly interact with cancer related genes (turning them on or off chronically). LSD has never been shown to do that. If it was capable of doing that believe me someone would have proved it. Its quite easy and anti drug research has tried to find bad things out about LSD, and basically they haven't. Also there has been no sign that excessive lsd use from older generations leads to any such effects. None at all. Many people in the 60s im sure got pregnant high on lsd.



Again this birth defects down the line thing is pretty redicuolus unless its teratogenic or the mother takes drug while pregnant.



Any man made drugs? Even medicine? That's very unreasonable actually. Antibiotics and vaccines have saved millions of lives in ways plant botanicals can never compare. People take that for granted these days and thus anything synthetic everyone freaks out about and more often then not its totally unfounded and in my opinion very ungrateful.

What are you talking about?

“LSD or any such man made drugs” is in reference to LSD and any such drugs like LSD. That post was talking about psychedelic drugs, not medicine that could potential save a person’s life. How you managed to read that into that posting is beyond me.

If there’s a drug that is natural and equally effective as a drug that is man-made, I’d take the natural one, without thinking twice. If there isn’t, and the only option is a man made option, then you take that.

I’d never give my kids an artificially flavored, artificially colored, artificially sweetened “juice” when fresh squeezed orange juice is an option. Would you?

Ok then prove it to us. Show us a society that has used LSD for many centuries that doesn’t suffer any long term side effects from its use. If you can give me such evidence that would be great. End of argument.

I thought you meant man made drugs period.



That's stupid and very unreasonable. Your a paranoid unrelenting madman if that's what you require as your definition of "safe".

Now you're stooping to name calling? Give me proof, not name calling. Proof.

The problem is you can't give such proof for LSD and so you're stooping to name calling. But you can give such proof for peyote.

I definitely have a high concern for safety of substances I put into my body. I'm proud of it. I respect my body.

If it hasn't been around for at least 200 years, its a RESEARCH CHEMICAL.

Many drugs are used for decades, and believed to be safe until one day a new study shows otherwise. Look at all the man made drugs that get recalled EVERY YEAR because a new study finds new problems with a given drug that was previously unknown!

If you want to ingest some experimental man made drugs, go ahead. I'm not about to.


I don’t care how much you love those man made chemicals. For energy, I prefer a cup of good all natural coffee and would never use any man made stimulants like meth.

For nausea, I use all natural ginger root. It works better than any man made anti-nausea meds out there.

For vitamins, I use all natural fruit and vegetables, not a vitamin pill.

For juice, I use all 100% natural juice, never anything with artificial ingredients in it.

If you want to live your life ingesting man made crap, you're life isn't going to be that long lasting, that's for sure.

Listen I was joking about the madman thing, I am just trying to point out that, that kind of evidence demand is crazy. If life saving drugs were invented and people had to wait that long for data then thousands of people would die. Of course lsd isn't an anti cancer drug or whatever but it is well studied. Your paranoia about less then 200 year old chemicals is totally unfounded. As I said there is no way lsd can cause birth defects based on its mechanisms of action. Thats all the proof I can provide. There is no possible way LSD can cause birth defects. Your demand for a 200 year clinical trial is completely crazy. I am trying to tell you something good about LSD, make you worry less about SWIYs past use and your getting pissed off at me for it.

As far as using natural drugs that's really all SWIM uses too. If my stomach hurts ginger helps me too. Or if I can't sleep I take sedating herbs. etc etc. I prefer natures pharmacy too. But at the same time me understanding plant medicine I also understand plant poison. Nearly all active compounds are a poison or a medicine at a certain dose. Obviously no one dies from ginger but people die from plant medicine quite often. I read an article not so long ago about an herbal practitioner in south africa who killed himself and his entire family brewing up some concoction. This kind of thing can and does happen. Just because people think certain plants are safe doesn't mean they are safe in certain doses, you can ID the wrong plant, or you can make a combination of plants that causes a serious health problem like liver damage. Just because its natural doesn't make it better. I can dig up all kinds of reports on these kinds of deaths and accidents if you want to know.

I get your point. But if it comes down to me being seriously ill and I need an antibiotic or I might die, I dont really care if its synthetic or not. I'll take it if its effective.

Also about the natural juice of course I would rather drink 100% natural juice but some people who live in cold climates don't have access to cheap natural juice all the time in the winter. And if they do its being trucked up from some tropical climate polluting the whole way up. About vitamines I never take supplements its totally unnecessary if you eat a balanced diet.

Its really sad how you and many others seem to forget that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives were saved by man made chemicals.

its also sad that you forget that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of lives were cut short by man made chemicals

yes sure, there was even a published paper about how the medicine is the leading cause of death in USA, with medication reactions, wrong surgery, etc....

but I think burnt is pretty aware that there are negative sides about man made things also.. what he and I seem to be trying to point out is that its not black and white. Nature has 'negative' things (venoms and so on) and all the good parts, just as man made things, which have many negative aspects but there are good things also...

when ron was saying that he preffers a natural fruit juice as opposed to artificial one, and then comparing this with natural entheogens and lsd, it was a bad comparison because lsd is not supposed to be the same as the entheogens (like the artificial fruit juice is supposed to imitate the real thing). LSD is LSD, it has its own particular effects, there is no equivalent in nature. So it can only be taken as a man made substance. I know for SWIM, for example, LSD can be a great tool that he finds nowhere else for creative breakthroughs, for gaining more body abilities and so on. It is also a lot of fun for SWIM. It stands on a different category than entheogens, but SWIM sees it can bring a lot of good also, if properly used. Sure Mulis (sp?) when he won the nobel prize, he already was used to thinking about molecules and so on but he said himself he really thinks he wouldnt have found PCR out if it wasnt for LSD.

I remember stanislav grof talking about an experiment once, where they got high profile people from all different areas (engineering, doctors, mathematicians, physicists, artists, whatever), and all of them needed to have a specific problem in their work that they were working on for at least some months and couldnt solve. They all took LSD and discussed with each other in small groups about their problems.. In the end I think there were even more solutions than problems in the first place hahaha. So anyways, just an example of how LSD properly used can bring a lot of positive and concrete things to the world.

It has a very good safety profile, and it does not cause damage to subsequent generations as burnt said... For whatever its worth, its therapeutic/effective index (when one compares ld50 to effective dose) profile seems to be safer than many (all?) natural entheogens. This is not to say its better, or also im definitely not recomending it to anybody. I totally respect each person's decisions... but its important to not fall into paranoia, and to respect those who do choose to indulge in whatever man made or natural substance, as long as they are conscious and balanced

i was just pointing out with my last post that there are always two sides...natural vs. synthetic...fix vs destroy...black vs white..the thing is...no matter which side you are on...it will always be the right one

Yes I don't mean to imply that all man made chemicals are safe or even worth making (theres so much crap out there made for no reason except to made drinks look as blue as the sky which to me is a waste but its not my problem I guess).

I see often in my daily life a surge of renewal in peoples interest in natural stuff whether its food or medicine. And this I think is a great thing! But I think in the surge of media hype and trendy marketing people are now rejecting things that man has made that have really improved the quality of life. People are also not always very informed. So if they read a label and it sais organic they think its better. But thats not always true for reasons I can indulge in but not now.

I often prefer natural chemicals and plants over synthetic stuff because of lessened side effects and its cheaper. I am natural products chemist though so I guess I always think about both sides of the coin the positives and negatives. I like organic food too but I also have no problem eating food that contains pesticides or genetically modified. I think farming practices should incorporate all of human knowledge and not reject chemicals because they are evil. Anyway thats another story that I could go on about but I won't right yet.

One small example is how the media made a big scare that vaccines could be linked to autism. Now the evidence was thin and not conclusive but people only need to hear one news article (even if its inconclusive) and now there are lots of parents not vaccinating their children for diseases that once plagued humanity. To me things like this are dangerous because people are not well informed and the media could care less.

I could care less if people want to drink bright blue soft drinks. Theres nothing really harmful with it (thats also a media scare half the time) but to me it just seems pointless. I prefer drinks that are either very nutrisious or intoxicating



Yes that is also true! If you think about all the chemical weapons and stuff like that. Jeez. But half the time they are natural compounds too but anywaaaaaay. Or atomic weapons. Certain pollutants. I agree I just think people should try to be informed about things before getting dragged away in media hype or passion for nature. We all should love and respect nature but that doesn't mean we should all start living in caves again. Unless you want to go ahead but again there are serious dangers about completely going back to nature that many people couldn't handle.

I guess I always like to look at everything as informed as possible. Which wastes tons of my time but anyway...

haha at least somebody is doing it burnt...id have to say..i always like reading your posts..

yes me also...

just one small detail, maybe blue colouring is no problem but there have been a few reports that certain specific food colourings do affect children behaviour..

When I buy products, I mainly choose natural alternatives. I also eat a lot of organic and all, so Im interested in why you think organic is not necessarily good.. so if you have some more time to waste..

69ron... Modern medecine has increased life expectancy by an amazing amount and reduced suffering incredibly. If I was ill I'd go to my doctor, not the nearest TCM shop. The development of dentristry alone is a godsend of science. Other developments are less welcome, yes, but overall it's pretty hard to argue against the benefits of modern science.

You're still generalising that plants are better than chemicals... it's not scientific. You yourself are the king of extractions, so don't turn your back on the wonderfulness of extracts! (I think you're just presenting an argument for fun anyway) Judge each case on its own merits.

For example, one of the reasons I only eat organic food is because I read it contains a lot more trace minerals (up to 17x in some cases so one article said), and I suspect that these trace minerals may be important. In this way, and many other ways, I try to put in my body what my ancestors did... because that's what I know it can cope with. I don't use refined sugar, because I'm not necessarily evolved to ingest it, and the link between refined sugar and diabetes backs up this belief.

On the other hand, I prefer distilled alcohol, because wine and beer make me feel bloated, full, sick and less energetic and you have to use the toilet much more. And SWIM prefers extracted DMT because he doesn't think that puking your guts up is pleasant or healthy- a report linked from Erowid said peyoteists can bleed to death from oesophagus wounds caused by frequent vomiting. I'm sure the same goes for ayawaska... and bulimia sufferers. In the jungle, purging out parasites may well be a healthier option than having them living inside you, but we in the West don't need to be doing that.

Our bodies are probably not evolved to ingest entheogens, whether they are eaten as whole plants or synthetic chemicals, so I don't think evolutionary concerns apply so much here... the very reason we like them is because they mess up our chemistry! DMT is perhaps an example of an entheogen we HAVE evolved to ingest (MAOs in our stomachs now stopping it from getting into our brains).

All I care about when choosing whether to ingest something or not, is whether or not detailed lifetime studies have been done... which I imagine would require 70 odd years, not 200. Whether it's a plant or a chemical doesn't matter to me. I do tend to shy away from pharm entheogens... but then I have no access to nor knowledge of them so perhaps that's the real barrier. Medically, I'm often more concerned about herbal stuff than pharms because herbal stuff is completely unregulated... I think many of the fat greenish pills people take every day will be at best placebo, and at worst detrimental to health. My outlook for both pharms and herbals is 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'.

About LSD and cancer... the only thing about this I've heard in the press is a beneficial use- that it is useful in low doses to relieve the pain of terminal cancer sufferers. I heard that doctors were pleading for permission to prescribe it for exactly that.

I think it's sad that because of prohibition, people are now taking as yet unscheduled research chemicals that can be legally bought on the internet, because they can't get legal access to LSD etc. I think it's crazy to experiment on yourself like that.

I mean, Erowid says that 1 in 100,000 people may experience death from MDMA! Some people are allergic apparently... and that hasn't been a research chemical for a LONG time.

Well about organic food. I have a number of qualms. Organic food is implied to be better because its all natural. But they use natural insecticides. In the U.S. nicotine is one example of an "organic" pesticide. We all know the toxicity of nicotine. So I get annoyed when organic consumers demand labels on regular chemically grown crops or genetically modified crops because they themselves may be using compounds that some people might not want to be injesting. I personally think there is a lot of hype about the dangers of whats in your food based on chemical knowledge of the compounds use and added. There are dangerous things out but there are also tons of examples of media hype.

For example the food coloring and it effecting kids. I really have no idea about this since I never looked into it. But Couldn't the problems just be from kids eating tons of highly refined sugar drinks all the time and not so much the dye? Its hard to rule out all those other variables and single out the dye. Maybe that has been done and the study if more thourough with perhaps animal data I have no idea but its just something that normally would go through my mind if I heard a report like that before running around protesting that blue dye needs to be banned.

My personal opinion as someone who sees benefits with all 3 agricultural practices if done in a safe way is that all should have to make some mention of what was used in the processing. Whether it was GMO, synthetic, or organic. Within limits however because I also think overregulation is bad.

Second is the locality issue. If food is grown local to me its the best because it requires minimal transport and methods to ensure ripening. Plus it benefits local economies. Therefore I don't think its all that "organic" to buy lets say an organic fruit that was shipped lets say from Africa to some "Organic" shop in California in the middle of North American winter. Think of all the energy costs involved in that.

For me again the best is that food be produced locally using minimal chemical treatment (not more then needed) and minimal GMO (only if crop/gene is safe for consumption and minimize use). But again this is not something that I feel need excessive or too much government regulation as that screws up so many things in the agricultural world.



haha thanks. Obviously I am opinioted and like debating but only for positive purposes. No harm is intended when I ramble incessantly like at ron, sorry ron .



Intersting about the minerals this could have a lot to do with the better quality soil present in organic farm areas as synthetic fertilizer depletes soil and monoculture doesn't help either. But you are right many trace minerals are healthy and needed for proper body functions (enzyme functions etc). Excess refined sugar is the problem with diabetes normal amounts of refined sugar is harmless.



About herbal regulations. They can be adulterated, lacking active ingredients, or potentially the wrong plant. This is a very interesting concern going on right at present. Herbals are cheap so thats nice but if more regulation comes in to try to improve them via rules and analysis of material they may get more expensive. Most of the worlds population can only afford herbal drugs, of course such countries don't regulate most medicines but they also can't unfortunately afford them. Its a tough thing for government regulatory agencies to deal with because in many cases the mechanism of action is only partially known. So one has to decide what constitutes good plant material, how much actives are there, what chemicals went into either purification or plant growth etc. Lots to consider at the industrial level.

Yes, there's oganic and then there's organic. Supermarkets are cashing in on the newfound interest and not adhering to the standards that they should be. In the UK there's what the supermarket calls organic, then there's stuff with Soil Association approval, for example. Big difference. One can join an organic box scheme if you're after local produce without all the unnecessary packaging. Or just read the labels and reject anything with airmiles. It astounds me that supermarkets individually package organic food!

I can't stand when fruit or vegetables are wrapped completely in plastic. It irks me. Anyway what do you consider a fair organic regulation and to whom do you think should do the regulating?

We can at least agree that naturally-grown substances in general are not necessarily less toxic than synthetic or extracted substances in general, right? That is, regardless of particular examples and statistical averages, on the whole and scientifically there is no true difference between these organic substances--only differences in preparations and differences between particular compounds.

Certainly the history of use is an issue, but even that doesn't mean "naturally-grown=good and refined=bad"; it just means that refined substances tend to be slightly more risky, and simply demands a risk assessment or a cost-benefit analysis--as even the the naturally-grown preparations do. This analysis and assessment will differ between preparations of substances and between individual users and cannot be swept into the broad terms of "naturally-grown=good and refined=bad." If every individual case of analysis and assessment for an individual always falls into that pattern, I would have to seriously question their reasoning, but that is still a matter of individual prerogative and not of universal moral-stratification.

Refinery is what we're really referring to when we say 'synthetic' or 'extracted', and as such, even most preparations that are considered "natural" could be considered in a stage of refinery. The moment it is cultivated, it is in a stage of refinery. The moment it is harvested (usually by means of 'picking' or 'cutting', it is in a stage of refinery. The moment it is dried, cleaned, or pulverized it is in a stage of refinery. The moment it is brewed...well, you've really crossed the line then, as you've just performed and extraction. We could even say that the moment it is digested, it is in a stage of refinery; especially if the psychoactive compound contained within is the purpose of ingestion--just a cellular capsule really.

burnt,

you're very right that its not so simple as 'organic food=good, the rest=bad'. There's all sorts of issues with stupidly excessive packaging in organic products, sometimes, which is quite a contradiction, or also indeed flying products from the other side of the world and all the impact it causes.

but I do think of these aspects a lot, I try to buy mostly organic with as little packaging as possible and also that comes as close as possible. Given a fair choice between two equivalent products of same area and packaging, I will always go for the organic one if I have the money.

As for nicotine, well, isnt it water soluble and therefore can easily get washed away? I wonder also how much it is absorbed by different foods as opposed to normal agrochemicals.

The food colouring, im pretty sure to have read some quite good research about specific food colouring being involved in development problems that did take in account these variables such as sugar and so on. I will see if I find the publication again. I remember one of the worse colourings was tartrazine.

BTW, as for GMO foods, I disagree with you. I steer away from them, and here's a couple of reasons why:
GMO food does not come from the small sustainable farmers, which is who I want to support. It comes from big companies of genetic engineering, that many times make one-generation seeds that need to be bought again every year. Also, many times they are genetically engineered exactly to stand more agrochemicals and things of the sort (other times to have more nutrients, but I dont feel like it is necessary, just eat well and you have all the nutrients). GMO are normally used in monoculture, which as you said exhausts the soil and also facilitates diseases and plagues of all sorts. Mixed plantations may not have such a big 'yield' (haha) but maintain the health of the soil and diminish the incidence of diseases. Also, we do not know exactly the future impacts on the health of people with this type of food. I heard once that there was a big incidence of allergies in the part of california where they first started planting GM corn, but im not sure how true this is, was just word of mouth.

I think that anything we may do that supports small scale sustainable actions is much better than giving money to big companies. Each one does what they want but I personally think that 'natural' food is enough to satisfy all our needs (or at least mine). I would like to see a gradual change in the world to this more sustainable idea, and I think one way or another it has to happen. Soon we will deplete the natural resources enough, and then whether we like it or not it wont continue as it is.