• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

An Arbitrary List of (Mostly) Safe & Effective Psychoactive Plants According to Teo

If you want all useful ethnobotanicals regardless of psychoactivity, 1) you shouldn't refer to it up top as a list of psychoactive plants, and 2) you forgot a few - for example, every single food crop humans have ever used, most of which have far more significance to human history than many of the obscure entheogens listed. See what I mean about this list needing some more clearly defined standards? ;)
 
Teotzlcoatl said:
Take a look. do some research.

That list covers almost all the psychoactive plants, period.
Click to expand...

I was asking if you planned to reply to the points in my post since you initially *just* pointed out the obvious silly mistake. I'm not sure how this post I quoted is a response, or in any other way related to the sentence of mine that you quoted within it. I'm not saying you're leaving things out; I'm saying it's not clear what this is a list of. Is it "safe and effective plant-drugs" like the title proclaims? Is it "all effective psychoactive plants that are also known to be relatively safe" as the first sentence declares? Is it all plants that are *either* psychoactive *or* important to human history or both, as the very next sentence declares? Does it include all "ethnobotanicals" (plants humans have some use for), even if they are explicitly non-psychoactive, as your last section implies and your later posts clarify? These are all different standards that would produce different lists, and you seem to shift between the definitions based on which objection you are responding to.

This back and forth is silly. Please try to define what your standards are and get back to me with one concise explanation of what is and is not "list material." Or don't; it's your list and "your" thread.
 
the last section, the "other interesting Ethnobotanicals" is kind of a waiting area until the names may be move to the above "psychoactives" lists... but i included some cool things like miracle fruit

look man take it or leave it

it's just a list

or

This back and forth is silly. Please try to define what your standards are and get back to me with one concise explanation of what is and is not "list material." Or don't; it's your list and "your" thread.
Click to expand...

why not tell me how i can improve my list?

I refuse to add things like Datura.

How else should I change the list and make it better?

Are there any psychoactive plants I forgot (besides DATURA!)?
 
I can't tell you how to improve your list if I don't know what it's supposed to be for. I don't have any personal interest in making a list of every plant that's either psychoactive or "interesting" in some undefined sense, absent some organizing principle to make that list useful to someone else somehow; I wish you luck with your list project, and I'll leave it at that unless you have something else you want me to reply to.

I already gave you some constructive advice: you forgot a major psychoactive cactus. That was also one of the first replies you got to this thread, but you ignored the suggestion both times. It's almost like you're actually more interested in silly arguments than this list of yours, huh? ;)

edit: Datura is a great example. Think about what, specifically, rules datura out. Is it some level of toxicity that makes a plant no longer qualify for the list? Some level of reputation for 'bad' effects? I think this list would be more valuable if you formalized those requirements rather than making the call personally on a case-by-case basis. Then again, I'm not sure what value this list is meant to produce in the first place, so maybe I'm just missing the point. Whatever value it's meant to have, good luck increasing that value and I hope it becomes a resource that is useful to someone. That someone is clearly not me so I'll kindly take my leave now.
 
Teo you are seriously a sociopath. in one post you say:

look man take it or leave it
Click to expand...
followed by
why not tell me how i can improve my list?
Click to expand...

and if you read solistus' post he does tell you how to improve the list, as do others.

Be more specific about what the list is.
Add referances or links to them and some info on effects.
 
Trichocereus bridgesii is NOT the most potent mescaline cactus, Lophophora is.
And it's no more potent than peruvianus or pachanoi unless your talking about the clones found ONLY in the USA or European plant market.

The list is meant to be a comprehensive list of all the safe and effective psychoactive plants on planet earth.

Which have been used by westerns... that is 1 requirement for me.

Basically... these are the requirements...


1) Does it come directly from natural sources? Is it a plant? Is it organic?
2) Does it have a long history of human usage? Has it been scientifically studied?
3) Does its history of human usage and scientific study show that it is relatively safe and non-toxic?
4) Has it been proven to be an effective psychoactive?
5) Has it been used by Westerns (Americans, Europeans, etc.)?

If you can answer yes to all these questions... it makes it on the list...
 
I think he meant the most potent of the Trichocereus genus.
 
it's still not even that.

in the USA and european horticultural markets maybe

but not everywhere... not in south america
 
Fine, I'll get dragged back here ;)

I don't care whether it's the most potent trichocereus or not. It's potent enough to be active, as its history of indigenous use demonstrates. Why have you made multiple replies nit picking my statement before adding it to the list you were so interested in improving moments ago? It's still not there... May I once again advance my "Teo cares more about arguing in general than whatever he's talking about in this specific argument" hypothesis?

You just copy/pasted that list from one of your old threads, dude. It clearly doesn't apply. 3) still doesn't define safe aside from adding a bunch of undefined qualifiers and adding the separate standard "non-toxic," which plenty things on your list do not even meet. Hello, tobacco has been shown to be relatively safe and non-toxic?! WTF? 4) says it has to be psychoactive... Need we go through this again? You just clarified that you have a section that does *not* have psychoactivity as a requirement; is that supposed to be completely separate? If so, why is it here at all and why do you format it as another subsection instead of a separate list? If not, then I call bullshit on you having "thought out" this response in the slightest. Either way, you still haven't defined what it means to be safe or what history of human use is significant enough to qualify, which are the specific objections I've repeated over and over on this thread, and you've added a bunch of new requirements that were previously not here at all. 2) is pretty vague, too; anything that has an officially assigned taxonomic name has been studied by scientists at least in passing to classify it.

If you're not actually going to think about my posts and give me a real response, don't insult my intelligence with obviously non-applicable copy-pasta, please.

Every time I try to take the high ground and walk away from arguing with you, you immediately one-up your own level of annoyance :\
 
Who claimed these substances as 'Safe' because this thread to me should be called "List of safe effective psychoactive plants according to Teo"

Without further links to provided solid information this thread is nothing more than a list of your opinion that your holding over our heads because you read some books.
 
these books are better than links-

Snu Voogelbreinder's "Garden of Eden", or Ott's "Pharmacopeia" and Christian Rätsch's "Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Plants".

solistus, i apperciate the input, i think it's fairly easy to see what the list is about

ill add trichocereus bridgesii.

i agree with you about tobacco, ill remove it

now how else can i make the list better? what else to add???? am i missing anything????
 
traditional usage?

I guess that is another requirement and a reason I didn't include Acacia (don't think I didn't consider it).
 
Shockingly, the "master list of safe and effective plant-drugs" has gradually narrowed to include virtually all of Teo's normal dogmatic proclamations.
 
I want to define this list best I can...

1) Does it come directly from natural sources? Is it a plant? Is it organic?
2) Does it have a long history of human usage? Has it been scientifically studied?
3) Does its history of human usage and scientific study show that it is relatively safe?
4) Has it been proven to be an effective psychoactive?
5) Has it been used traditionally by ancient cultures?
6) Has it been used by Westerns (Americans, Europeans, etc.)?
7) Is it a historically and culturally important psychoactive ethnobotanical?


Sections-

1) Entheogens (Botanicals which produce entheogenic or psychedelic effects)

2) Psychoactives (Botanicals which produce intoxication, inebriation, stimulation or other mind altering effects)

3) Other Ethnobotanicals (Botanicals which do not have prominent inebriating/intoxicating effects, but have other intriguing uses. This includes some mild psychoactives, medicinals or other interesting and/or useful ethnobotanicals. This section is like the waiting list... it's for sorta psychoactive plants... like ginkgo, ginseng, cali poppy, etc.

Shockingly, the "master list of safe and effective plant-drugs" has gradually narrowed to include virtually all of Teo's normal dogmatic proclamations.
Click to expand...

Dude it's still an awesome list including also all the world's major psychoactive plants.

Keep them coming tho seriously... tell me the plants I'm missing!
 
Teotzlcoatl said:
these books are better than links-
Click to expand...

No.... This is a research website designed so we don't have to go out and purchase a library to know how to safely consume drugs. Therefore links to the information added to your list would be more beneficial to the site. So this may become a 'Big & Dandy Safe and Effective Psychoactive Plant Thread' rather than teasing us with a list and telling us to find the rest elsewhere.


I think we may have another Dr. Rick Strassman here making facts out of thin air.
 
fair enough

but the books ARE better.

however, I will try to provide some links... but it's like.. where to start... ya know?
 
Teotzlcoatl said:
fair enough

but the books ARE better.

however, I will try to provide some links... but it's like.. where to start... ya know?
Click to expand...

1) Does it come directly from natural sources? Is it a plant? Is it organic?
2) Does it have a long history of human usage? Has it been scientifically studied?
3) Does its history of human usage and scientific study show that it is relatively safe?
4) Has it been proven to be an effective psychoactive?
5) Has it been used traditionally by ancient cultures?
6) Has it been used by Westerns (Americans, Europeans, etc.)?
7) Is it a historically and culturally important psychoactive ethnobotanical?
Click to expand...

Here is a good start ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top