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

San Pedro/Peruvian torch/peyote comparison

However, I don't see how the mescaline from Peruvian Torch is different from the EXACT SAME MOLECULE in San Pedro or Peyote. Unless there are other psychoactive alkaloids in the plants, which I have never heard of, the effects should be the same.
Click to expand...


Trichocereus cacti contain 100s of compounds, not just mescaline, some of which are psychoactive, some medicinal and some unknown.

Lophophora contains even MORE compounds than Trichocereus!

Does anyone know what these specific compounds are? have these been tested seperately for their psychoactivity?
Click to expand...

Like I said there are tons of them.

Check out the "Lost Peyotes" info, that gets into this.

One could say that coffee and tea offer rather different experiences. Tea being a lot mellower. This has been studied: they both contain caffeine as their active stimulant but the tannins in the tea slow down the absorbtion, stretching out the effect of caffeine on a longer period. Kind of like snorting vs. IVing. Also coffee has bowel irritation as a side-effect, which makes the experience different i'll agree, but not in a "differently psychoactive" way.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Roasted Coffea seeds are going to have all sorts of different stuff in them when compared to Camellia leafs. Nutrients, minerals, vitamins, not to mentions their different make-ups in psychoactive compounds. Tea may contain theobormine and all sorts of xanthines and stuff... while coffea will contain another set of compounds, even tho their main active chemical in both is caffeine, they are very different.... look at Yerba Mate and the other Ilex plants... they are even more different.

I can't believe people are so stupid (vistor q) as to not know that cacti contained other compounds besides mescaline... geeze... retard.
 
Teotzlcoatl said:
I can't believe people are so stupid (vistor q) as to not know that cacti contained other compounds besides mescaline... geeze... retard.
Click to expand...

Can someone please explain to this guy the difference between "Stupidity" and "Ignorance" ?

I don't pretend to know everything and I learn things every day. We are all relatively ignorant.

Quite a humorous comment coming from someone who had no clue who Che Guevara was...

Oh, and by the way, I knew there were various compounds present in cacti, just not that they were psychoactive in any way. You see, unlike you I don't spend all my waking hours jerking off to plants.

This gratuitous insulting served what purpose?...
 
^^people dont know till they find out. So thank you for enlightening Visitor Q.

The insults stop here though or there will be infractions handed out and this thread will be closed.
 
Visitor Q said:
I'm sorry, I call bullshit.

Mescaline could be comparable to MDMA (please don't use fake acronym XTC... it's retarded)
because of their chemical similarities (they are both phenethylamines).

However, I don't see how the mescaline from Peruvian Torch is different from the EXACT SAME MOLECULE in San Pedro or Peyote. Unless there are other psychoactive alkaloids in the plants, which I have never heard of, the effects should be the same.
Click to expand...
http://isomerdesign.com/PiHKAL/read.php?domain=pk&id=95
You have now.
 
atara said:
http://isomerdesign.com/PiHKAL/read.php?domain=pk&id=95
You have now.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I must reject this as evidence of other active alkaloids in peyote.

From the PiHKAL article:

EXTENSIONS AND COMMENTARY: It looks as if this compound is not active. There is an excellent argument as to why it really should be, and the fact that it is not active is completely unexpected.
Click to expand...


It is inevitable that this simple and most appealing precursor will be found to be present in the cactus, at some future time when we will have tools of sufficient sensitivity to detect it. And certainly, it would be reasonable to expect it to be an active psychedelic, and to be as interesting in man as its close cousin, mescaline. But, at the present time, LOPHOPHINE is not known to be present in the plant, and it is not known to be active in man. I am confident that both statuses will change in the future.
Click to expand...

It seems Shulgin (& friends?) have some kind of "faith" in this compound. They have reason to believe it is present in Lophophora Williamsii (peyote) and that it contains within it the same profoundness of its cousin Mescaline.

However, at the present time it is still theoretical and has not produced significant effects in test subjects (see Qualitative Comments) .

My honest question is: If Shulgin & friends were able to synthesize the god-damn thing, why have they not experimented with it more? (if it's so friggin' promising)
 
Peyote Alkaloids

Mescaline is definately not the only active alkaloid.

A cactus experience is quite different than pure mescaline, its been reported by many who have tried both.
 
Ok, fair enough Delsyd. You've got a point.

I see there are lots of alkaloids there and I never denied there were.

Are some of these active by themselves? Have they been individually extracted/synthesized and tested for their effects? and if not... why not?

I don't mean to be annoying, but evidence of the presence of other alkaloids does not confirm or deny the possibility that mescaline could be the only one with significant psychoactive effect. kind of like THC in cannabis (which we also know is not the only cannabinoid compound naturally present in marijuana)

I think that psychosomatic differences in experience are not to be overlooked, especially with psychedelics.

I have heard people tell me that vodka doesn't give them the same buzz as gin and frankly I think it's in their mind because they are only ingesting ethanol as a psychoactive both times.

Unless there is something I am bluntly overlooking.

Please help me shed some light!...
 
i wish i knew more psychpharmacology to be able to explain it to you, but sadly i dont.
I have heard others, who are knowledgable in psychpharm mention that alot of the alkaloids are active.
Some poeple can look at a picture of molecule and tell you if itll work or not.

Maybe we could get Fast&Bulbous to chime in. I bet he could tell you which of those is active and not.
 
Delsyd said:
Maybe we could get Fast&Bulbous to chime in. I bet he could tell you which of those is active and not.
Click to expand...

That would be fantastic.

Thanks a bunch for your patience, Delsyd. "psychpharm" as you call it is one of my greater interests for the past decade (although I wouldn't yet say that I'm a reference) and psychoactive cacti fascinate me for some reason that I have yet to fully understand.

Delsyd said:
Some poeple can look at a picture of molecule and tell you if itll work or not.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, that is the level of knowledge I am aiming for. However, like the PiKHAL article on "Lophophine" suggests, even the most expert minds are at times completely baffled as the results of their experiments are surprisingly unexpected.

Shulgin looked at that molecular structure and believed it would be active.

The experiments have shown that it is not.

(...yet he retains some kind of faith in the compound)
 
Oh come on people....

This thread was just getting interesting was it not?
 
I've tried both.

They are both horrible tasting! Peyote more so, but then have to eat more of the San Pedro/Peruvian Torch.

Peyote is an endangered species.
San Pedro is plentiful.

San Pedro grows very quickly for a cactus.
Peyote takes decades grow.

Peyote is an extremely beautiful plant.
S.P. is a pretty average looking columnar cactus, but handsome in it's own way.

They both are amazing beautiful trips. It's really hard for me to compare the two because I ate them about 15 years apart from each other, in different parts of the world. I wouldn't say that there was anything obviously different between them. If there is a difference, it's subtle, maybe like the difference between 1P-LSD and LSD.

Stick to San Pedro - it's not endangered, easier to grow, does the trick.
 
I've tried San Pedro and bridgesii several times each and they both felt pretty much the same to me. The only difference I noticed is that bridgesii is more potent. I don't understand why San Pedro is so much more popular. Bridgesii is about the same price per foot but several times as strong.
 
cj187 said:
I've tried San Pedro and bridgesii several times each and they both felt pretty much the same to me. The only difference I noticed is that bridgesii is more potent. I don't understand why San Pedro is so much more popular. Bridgesii is about the same price per foot but several times as strong.
Click to expand...

maybe cuz bridgesii is spikier
 
I found San Pedro and Bridgesii much different although I typically use the "PC Variety" of Pedro which may make the difference. (Note: PC's typically suck on alkaloid content when bought online but when I grew out the cuttings myself and recut a lot on the same plant the potency rises greatly. Find a decent PC then keep it and clone it.)

San Pedro is more akin to an empathogenic type experience and is light and playful. Bridgesii is very heavy and at times seems to be capable of reaching a darker place than Pedro. I've never tried a Peruvian or Peyote however.

Bridgesii is MUCH stronger don't get me wrong but I like the effect of a good PC Pedro more even if I gotta take 5-10x more as well.

-GC
 
I think Bridgesii can be different and stronger because of iirc flavinoid compounds which may act a bit like MAOIs but probably not like typical ones, in any case they supposedly influence metabolism.

It's interesting if this is true cause potentially you could try to get those compounds from another plant source and see if you can potentiate mesc or other PEAs. That could also help to validate or debunk. Do not take this shit as fact, I'm only learning about it myself or at least started a while ago.

Isn't this direction where Shulgin was headed in as well in some later phase? idk
 
^^^Definitely some MAOI activity going on with Bridgesii. All analysis and anecdotes from extractions seem to indicate it contains no more Mescaline than the others... Based on the feel of the experience I'd say it's either MAOI activity or another alkaloid causing these effects but it sure ain't more Mescaline. (I'm leaning towards the latter or a combination of the two.)

Are you aware which compounds these are specifically?

I believe your right too that Shulgin was exploring these things in his later years but likely wasn't able to finish. I always wonder what other work he had going that's only half complete.. Really hope the man had a protege to continue where he left off.

-GC
 
utfse dude :) Mainly quercetin and kaempferol are candidates apparently..

I do have synthetic mescaline left which frankly didn't do much for me last time and like other chems like synthetic DMT or even well distilled vodka compared to nice beers and wines makes me feel like it's left naked out in the cold by being so pure and it's made just a little too transparent/invisible. If I wanna dive into the invisible ground-experience to investigate the glasses through which we see the world and beyond that, the mysterious humming like the carrier wave of at the very least our brains and minds... I would just do zazen, lol.

I assure you am not trying to brag about pure synthetics in the sense of "purity", but like how enzyme inhibitors and just competitive inhibitors that are just close analogues.. they seem to enrich a lot of natural drug preparates. While I don't like harmala with shrooms, I do see how it's a step down when you boil it down to just the main active compound. I think subtle effects on kinetics etc just from having such a rich mixture is wildly underestimated...

Anyway what I'm saying is: maybe it's worth trying to find and extract such flavinoids and try a combination with synthetic mesc that at least approximates what should be in bridgesii and see if it is wilder like jungle spice is to DMT.

Idk about apprentices but here goes nothing: *projects batman signal in the form of Hamilton Morris i.e. Syd reincarnated as a closet-goth* we need you now dude
 
Haha everyone gets lazy once in awhile and needs a spoonful ;)

No I know what you mean... DMT extracted from plant matter, even when exceedingly pure, has something that synthetic DMT doesn't. I found synthetic DMT very powerful but I felt like I was shot into hyperspace with no guide or protection, the visuals also seemed different. (Really pure extracted DMT has more fractals and is hazy whereas synthetic DMT just turns everything into this alien world that's clear as day for me.)

Purity is typically a big deal but for some of these psychedelics I feel it's unnecessary and like you are saying takes away from the fullness of the experience. Even certain synthetic substances benefit from certain impurities/byproducts.

I hope one day to be graced with synthetic Mescaline.. My only chance sadly passed away. I've heard and read what your saying about it lacking but I also heard it was fairly stimulating and more MDMA-esque than normal so my hunt continues!

-GC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top