• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

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

My point is, when you chew the leaves you're using cocaine. Granted, street cocaine is pretty much always cut to shit. But pure coca extract is no more dangerous if used in moderate amounts than chewing coca leaves imo.
 
Yes, you are using cocaine (in addition to lots of other compounds in the leaf) when you chew coca leaves.

I do not agree that pure cocaine (coca extract?) is no more dangerous than coca leaf, that is a fallacy.

Just think about how easy it would be to ingest a lethal amount? With the pure extract it'd be a very small amount... with the leaf it'd be pounds...
 
Teotzlcoatl said:
I have included and excluded that one over and over again but finally decided to try and pick just 1 plant for each genus in the end (Salvia divinorum was the one I choose).
Click to expand...

While I think in many cases this is probably a good idea, especially since many genera of plants contain many species that are virtually the same, I don't think this should always be the case. For example, sage and salvia divinorum... the effects are nothing at all similar, totally unrelated. I think to combine them into a single entry would be doing this project a disservice and would be misleading.

I also struggle with the different Trichocereus species... since they all have somewhat different alkaloid profiles, I would say it might be best to leave them as separate entries. It would be more informative in the end. Then again, I'm a fan of complex projects. :) But I think the end result will be more useful the more detail there is.
 
Well okay, makes sense. I'm just saying, I think salvia divinorum and sage are so completely different that they should be given two separate entries anyway... maybe make an exception for this one and others like it that are so distinct?
 
Thanks I guess, but safety is a relative term just like toxicity.

Maybe if there were certain active (medium) doses for every plant given with a sort of proven LD50 only instead of 50 higher number that includes complications - then a classification could be useful.

If you have ripped these lists (no accusations here) from encyclopaedia's and ethnobotanical literature or if there were sources I could get a more useful feeling out of this. If I were to use a plant for a certain purpose I wouldn't check this list and think well OK lets go for it, so what is the point exactly?
I would look for specific info on it and that would include the safety aspects.

Sorry to sort of **** you in the face, as usual, T.

Oh well I do have a positive view on it I must say: the list could inspire people to look up things they never heard about before.
 
Equivalently ingested amounts of cocaine via oral use of coca leaves is indeed safer than insufflated cocaine HCl. The reason for this is that orally ingested cocaine reaches the brain far more slowly and has lower peak plasma levels than insufflated pure product. A faster rate of influx to the brain is physiologically more dangerous and results in the faster and greater reuptake inhibition of dopamine, thereby making it more addictive.
 
Maybe you should define what you mean by 'safe'. I see a very big risk of this falling into another one of your dogmatic rant threads if you make each judgment call based on how valuable you feel that plant's history of use has been. Otherwise, it's just the "Master List of Drugs Teo Likes" which isn't super practical to anyone else. Trying to keep this post productive, if I offended anyone it was unintentional and I'm sorry.
 
This is the reason I proposed to include a summary of effects and other useful information here besides just a list. A list is interesting but holds little value aside from curiosity. A list that links to a summary of effects, experiences, etc, however, could be a tremendously useful tool for research.
 
If you have ripped these lists (no accusations here) from encyclopaedia's and ethnobotanical literature or if there were sources I could get a more useful feeling out of this.

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


Snu Voogelbreinder's book is the most up to date.


Just google "snu garden of eden" for more info

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&ta...22806320020c3c
Click to expand...

I compiled my list over the years partially from the above books, as well as other books and the internet (erowid, forums, etc.).
 
it's just the "Master List of Drugs Teo Likes"
Click to expand...

it's not just drugs i like

it's most all overtly psychoactive plants which have been used by westerns and proven to be psychoactive

i think you will find that list covers most important psychoactive plants
 
Teo: you said yourself that you excluded things you personally felt were a combination of unsafe and not important enough in human history to warrant inclusion. Maybe 'Drugs Teo Likes' isn't exactly accurate - it's not just the compounds you personally enjoy _consuming - but it is still limited to the drugs you decide based on some undeclared standards to be 'worthy.' That makes it a lot less useful to anyone who isn't you and isn't trying to find out something about your personal opinions. If it's gonna become a stickied thread and turned into a community resource, it needs an objective standard for what counts and what doesn't. That's what I was trying to say. I'm not even saying your subjective standards are without merit, just that since they're both subjective and not declared, it makes it hard for others to know what to do with this list.

How do you define unsafe? You include tobacco, for example, which kills lots of its users (admittedly untreated tobacco is *less bad* but it's still an addictive carcinogen).

On a more pedantic note, two corrections:

1) Miracle fruit is not a psychoactive drug. The active proteins interact with your taste buds physically; they never even enter the blood stream, let alone cross the blood-brain barrier which is part of the definition of 'psychoactive'.

2) You should probably list Echinopsis as the primary name for the cacti-formerly-known-as-trichocereus and trichocereus as a synonymous name, since the Echinopsis names are now the preferred taxonomy. Also, you left off Echinopsis lageniformis (syn. T. bridgesii), possibly the most potent of the mescaline containing cacti and with a long history of native use in Bolivia.

edit: changed included -> excluded, see Teo's quote for my original brainfart
 
Last edited:
you said yourself that you included things you personally felt were a combination of unsafe and not important enough in human history to warrant inclusion.
Click to expand...

I did? Where?
 
Meant excluded ;) If you still object to that characterisation: you said you excluded datura because it's particularly unsafe, and said the reason you included some others that may be slightly questionable is because of how important their history of human use is/was. So, assuming you have consistent standards at all, those must be two of them, in some unspecified combination. Thus, the list itself becoming subjective and hard to utilize as a resource, since it's just a list of whatever drugs have met your mysterious unspecified requirements with no further explanation.

Substantive reply coming or just that?
 
you said yourself that you included things you personally felt were a combination of unsafe and not important enough in human history to warrant inclusion
Click to expand...

Did I? Where?

The idea is to include safe plants, important in human history which are effective psychoactives.

Miracle fruit is not a psychoactive drug. The active proteins interact with your taste buds physically; they never even enter the blood stream, let alone cross the blood-brain barrier which is part of the definition of 'psychoactive'.
Click to expand...


See-

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)
Click to expand...


AKA... includes interesting non-psychoactive ethnobotanicals.

ethnobotanicals = any plant people use.

entheogen = psychedelic plant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top