I would like to see the above studied. Here's my rationale:

MDMA is great, but since it's synthetic, it has unforeseen consequences, namely an unidentifiable sense of fear later on in life, as karma builds up in response to mental conclusions and processes initiated by the experience induced by the chemical.
However, mescaline-containing cacti such as San Pedro and Peyote, since wholesomely balanced conglomerates of alkaloids and phytochemicals (not to mention slime and fiber!), direct a person, albeit with more nausea, toward a more sustainable way of living.
Both are good for PTSD. But I propose that MDMA is a good substitute for the time being while we figure out that actually, Peyote and other cacti are best suited for the job, in the long-term.
Thanks, Shulgin. But nature did it right first, and if we reconnect with our Native American brothers, we can integrate medicinal cacti use properly into society in a way that will end up better.

Lets have both!!!!

I don't agree that just because a compound is synthetic it automatically means it's inferior to its organic counterpart. In some aspects like availability yes, not a lot of people are experienced organic chemists who can synthesize MDMA or LSD-25 so it makes sense to have some mescaline producing cacti around or some khat plants to substitute for amphetamine. This is where organic compounds have a clear advantage over synthetics.

I can't speak for mescaline but having tried MDMA a total of 6 times in the past 4 years it certainly provides one of the best experiences that life has to offer and I think it's overall a good compound when dosed appropriately. The negative aspects and neurotoxicity seems to be mostly as a result of people taking large quantities of the drug very frequently and often in places with high ambient temperatures which is positively correlated with neurotoxicity for most strong monoaminergic drugs like amphetamine, cocaine and of coarse MDMA.

Even though I have not tried mescaline (yet) I believe it can substitute for MDMA in regards to treating the same disorders such as PTSD and other mental health disorders with better efficacy. I say this because it is well known that most psychedelic drugs including N,N-DMT, 5-MeO-DMT and psilocin all produce positive changes in an individuals mental state such as attenuating anxiety and depression which are both symptoms of PTSD. Mescaline also seems to be more well-tolerated since there's is low-incidence of negative CNS and cardiovascular outcomes (e.g. arrhythmias, sudden death, etc...).

Having said that mescaline is nowhere near as popular as MDMA so it's also reasonable to assume that it's apparent safer toxicity could be largely an effect of smaller sample size. I want to end off by saying I think mescaline is better for long-term use PTSD and other mental health problems, especially since it is less taxing on the CNS, but MDMA can also be used as long as it is used very sparingly.

I didn't say inferior/superior. I framed it in terms of long-term outcomes and safety.

I think the long duration of mescaline is holding it back from having a role so far in this "Psychedelic Renaissance". The model being developed around MDMA and Psilocybin is based on psychedelic assisted therapy. You need one or two therapists present with the patient throughout the trip. Mescaline lasts a long time for that, and it can also cause nausea for many people. MDMA makes more sense in this framework.

But mescaline has tremendous therapeutic potential. Its uniquely positioned in the sense that home cultivation of a few plants can lead to a lifetime supply of mescaline. The safety profile and millennia long history of use are what people are looking for. So mescaline makes a lot of sense as a "DIY" therapeutic tool.

But its hard to say if medical researchers will find a way to harness mescaline's potential. Luckily we dont have to wait for them. I think that over time mescaline's therapeutic effects will become more widely known. People who want to utilize it for those effects will do so, whether or not mescaline ever gets fit into a workable framework for therapists to use.

The topic is on mescaline but you mention the superiority of whole cactus.

We've got to wait for the cultural fixation on single isolated compounds to pass.

Sorry RS, didn't understand what you meant is all.

Although it definitely helps to have a therapist you can discuss your problems with I don't think it's really necessary to have one when consuming mescaline, I feel the same way when it comes to south american shamans. As long as an individual has the right intention (e.g. personal growth and emotional healing) I believe the compound does it's job the same, at least on a physiological level (e.g. neurogenesis, 5-HT2A downregulation, etc...) It's also important to note that MDMA in an empathogen which completely breaks down social anxiety barriers and allows one to communicate very openly and freely, infact it's extremely difficulty to get them to shut up! Whereas on a solid dose of mescaline or any other psychedelic it can get pretty difficult to talk coherently.

Mescaline carries virtually no abuse potential and is also well-tolerated compound so I think informed adults who have taken some time to study the compound can self prescribe/medicate on it with little risks in comparison to MDMA which can be more sinister and hedonistic.

As for isolated mescaline versus whole cactus I don't think it matters much personally. If you were to remove the the caffeine out of coffee, THC out of cannabis, cocaine from coca, etc... these plants would loose 99% of their effects. I don't believe that the other phytocompounds play as big as a role as people say and I feel it is overhyped personally. Their may be a few exceptions like with syrian rue or caapi having said that.