Tryptamines did hippies take shrooms?

[BlueHues]

Hippies definitely took psilocybin in the '60s, and many Americans experimented with mushrooms far before that....there's more varieties of psychedelic mushrooms that grow wild in the Pacific Northwest than anywhere else in the world....

There's a book called "Orange Sunshine: The Brotherhood of Eternal Love" that talks about a psychedelic cult/drug smuggling group that was around in the 60s/70s....Their original founder, a guy named John Griggs died from a massive dose of synthetic psilocybin....They were based in Orange County in SoCal and were affiliated with other psychedelic movements going on at the time....They were responsible for distributing the legendary "orange sunshines" which were LSD tablets that contained massive amounts of LSD crystal///they were ridiculously potent, even by '60s standards...

I was a DeadHead in the 90s when I was a teenager and I've met a lot of hippies from that era who took mushrooms...

Of course, the last discussion I had about LSD in this forum...I mentioned something about an effect where one layer of fluid floats on top of another fluid at some point when LSD is synthesized and someone told me: "The layering effect doesn't happen in chemistry"....Yeah okay!

Even MDMA was being used by some people in the '60s...although acid was more widespread than anything...Europe and US were flooded...probably because because of how easy it is to distribute 100s of thousands of doses of it....

 

[squidhead]

Did you ever take methadrine? I never did but people I knew did in SF in the mid 60s.

We used to take Benzedrine & Dexedrine in the late 60s/early 70s (25 cents/pill) & snorted Crystal Methamphetamine, but am not familiar with Methadrine. Who knows? Could've done some & not even aware of it.

Hippies definitely took psilocybin in the '60s, and many Americans experimented with mushrooms far before that....there's more varieties of psychedelic mushrooms that grow wild in the Pacific Northwest than anywhere else in the world....

There's a book called "Orange Sunshine: The Brotherhood of Eternal Love" that talks about a psychedelic cult/drug smuggling group that was around in the 60s/70s....Their original founder, a guy named John Griggs died from a massive dose of synthetic psilocybin....They were based in Orange County in SoCal and were affiliated with other psychedelic movements going on at the time....They were responsible for distributing the legendary "orange sunshines" which were LSD tablets that contained massive amounts of LSD crystal///they were ridiculously potent, even by '60s standards...

Yeah, VERY potent. 1 of the heaviest trips I ever had was some Orange Barrel in 1970 (Chicago). Good lord, that lasted a good 10-12 hrs of some amazing hallucinations. At 1 point, I thought I was going to be 'stuck' like that forever. Man, what a dose that was.
No mention of Owsley? I know he was 1 of the main suppliers of LSD in the San Fran area in the mid-1960s. Last I heard, he retired to Australia.
The main LSD flavors in the late 60s/early 70s for our group of 'heads' were: Yellow or Purple Microdot, Windowpane, Orange Sunshine or Barrel, Red Blotter...& yeah, we had the Chocolate Mescaline back then as well. Last time I used any synthetic psychedelics was 1975, but I've done some mushrooms (grows wild in the cow pastures in the Southeast USA) & peyote buttons when I was living in Denver & Tucson.
Nowadays? Strictly weed or hash...

 

[BlueHues]

^No the book mentions Leary and Owsley...Leary was hanging out at a ranch with the Brotherhood of eternal love and whoever Owsleys protégé was was the one who made the orange sunshines at the request of Leary and the BEL....They were disappointed with this stuff "white lightning" and specifically requested really strong stuff...Some people even thought it was too much....

 

[Ismene]

Hippies definitely took psilocybin in the '60s

I dunno about "hippies" - it was certainly possible to order psilocybin pills from Sandoz up until about 1963 because Leary did it.

There's a book called "Orange Sunshine: The Brotherhood of Eternal Love"

I wouldn't take that book as gospel - it's tabloid fodder.

Their original founder, a guy named John Griggs died from a massive dose of synthetic psilocybin

If he really did die of a "psilocybin overdose" he is the only human being in recorded history to do so. My guess is he took some shit that wasn't psilocybin.

And remember - what you're talking about is psilocybin pills - yeah there's no doubt you could order psilocybin pills from Sandoz until 1963 if you could convince them you were a valid researcher. That's not the same thing as saying hippies were taking mushrooms. Y'follow?

Even MDMA was being used by some people in the '60s

Nah.

 

[Ismene]

The main LSD flavors in the late 60s/early 70s for our group of 'heads' were: Yellow or Purple Microdot, Windowpane, Orange Sunshine or Barrel, Red Blotter

You can't have flavours of LSD squid - LSD is a chemical formula. The atoms are either arranged in the correct molecular position to make up LSD or they arn't in which case it isn't LSD. You can't have some half-assed version of LSD that is half as strong as another version of LSD - it doesn't work like that.

Owlsey always said he once mixed up the same batch of acid with different food dyes just to have a laugh at all the hippies - sure enough he soon started hearing "The red acid is a bummer, but the yellow is visual and the orange is righteously mellow". They were all exactly the same LSD.

 

[pharmakos]

^^ differences in potency can be due to varying levels of impurities from poor synthesis, though.

 

[Ismene]

^^ differences in potency can be due to varying levels of impurities from poor synthesis, though.

I don't think so - a molecule is either LSD or it isn't LSD. Sure there can different amounts of it on the blotter but "impurities"? If there are any "impurities" then they'll need to be more potent and psychoactive than even LSD - because the "impurities" are overwhelming the effect of the LSD otherwise you wouldn't notice them. I can't think of any such impurities.

 

[JackARoe]

You can't have flavours of LSD squid - LSD is a chemical formula.

Ismene, I think he just meant that as a figure of speech maybe??

Anyway I have been following this thread. While the first times I even heard of mushrooms in a bag was around 1978-79, I have asked a few people a little older than me. Most knew of the psilocybin pills of the early 60's, but once LSD came in they were all but forgotten (according to them). They never saw mushrooms sold in a bag until much later too. To that I credit the McKenna brothers for that book. But it seems "if" mushrooms were sold in a bag in let's say 1969 they were supermarket mushrooms with LSD on them. (at least for the most part)

I can't argue with people that say they took genuine psilocybin mushrooms in the 60's and early 70's (I'll let Ismene do that ) But I myself lean towards what Ismene is saying based off of people I spoke to and what I know. Sure it is possible, but that is not the history I am aware of with people that were there.

 

[Livinginthealps]

You can't have flavours of LSD squid - LSD is a chemical formula. The atoms are either arranged in the correct molecular position to make up LSD or they arn't in which case it isn't LSD. You can't have some half-assed version of LSD that is half as strong as another version of LSD - it doesn't work like that.

Owlsey always said he once mixed up the same batch of acid with different food dyes just to have a laugh at all the hippies - sure enough he soon started hearing "The red acid is a bummer, but the yellow is visual and the orange is righteously mellow". They were all exactly the same LSD.

And bear also said that there is also bad vs good LSD. He has this discussion with Sasha many times. He says there is something magical the more and more pure the LSD gets. Sasha says that the impurities are going to be so minute. In which bear says he doesn't know what is playing the role but, there is definitely something going on there. Later he figure it acts as a catalyst and a catalyst can catalyze a reaction in extreme minute quantities often not effected by the reaction. So his beliefs are a bit scattered at times. But, I believe the poster was saying different mediums of lsd.

 

[squidhead]

Ismene, I think he just meant that as a figure of speech maybe??

Thanks man...that's exactly how I meant it.

Yeah Ismene, I was shocked when the Red Blotter didn't taste like a cherry cough-drop...very disappointing.8)

 

[squidhead]

Owlsey always said he once mixed up the same batch of acid with different food dyes just to have a laugh at all the hippies - sure enough he soon started hearing "The red acid is a bummer, but the yellow is visual and the orange is righteously mellow". They were all exactly the same LSD.

Yeah sure thing...8)...& this was when you were over at his crib?

 

[dukewayne]

methinks squidhead knows that of which he speaks

 

[BlueHues]

You can find wild psilocybin mushrooms growing pretty much everywhere in the Northwest, and the Southeast.....but nobody in a country of over 250 million people knew about or took them in the 1960s?

 

[Ismene]

Yeah Ismene, I was shocked when the Red Blotter didn't taste like a cherry cough-drop...very disappointing.8)

But you mixed it with some of that good old chocolate mescaline and it tasted just fine? 8)

He says there is something magical the more and more pure the LSD gets.

I'm not much of a believer in in magic. All I know is if the molecule contains the correct atoms in the correct structure it's LSD, otherwise it isn't LSD.

You can find wild psilocybin mushrooms growing pretty much everywhere in the Northwest, and the Southeast.....but nobody in a country of over 250 million people knew about or took them in the 1960s?

But remember no-one knew there were wild psilocybin mushrooms in the northwest, otherwise Wasson wouldn't have had to go to Mexico to discover them. Think about it. Psilocybin is isolated in 1958 - you're saying that teenage hippies were capable of going from that to discovering psilocybin mushrooms in the wild and tripping on them within a few years? Can you tell me exactly how they discovered all these mushrooms? The only method would have been to eat any strange wild mushroom they found and hope it didn't kill them.

Think how many years it took LSD to spread - and that was when it was known it was harmless and came in nice blotters. You're telling me mushrooms spread twice as fast as LSD when there was an enormous risk that if you took the wrong mushroom you died screaming in agony? Nah - it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Ismene]

But it seems "if" mushrooms were sold in a bag in let's say 1969 they were supermarket mushrooms with LSD on them. (at least for the most part)

By the sound of a lot of the "people who were there" in this thread I don't think you'd even have to put LSD on them. Just give them the store-bought mushroom and tell them "Yeah dude, it makes you see fairies" and they'dve been tripping amaze-balls!

 

[pharmakos]

I don't think so - a molecule is either LSD or it isn't LSD. Sure there can different amounts of it on the blotter but "impurities"? If there are any "impurities" then they'll need to be more potent and psychoactive than even LSD - because the "impurities" are overwhelming the effect of the LSD otherwise you wouldn't notice them. I can't think of any such impurities.

from TiHKAL:

Let me mention in passing, that there are three stereoisomers possible for d-LSD. There are d-iso-LSD, l-LSD, and l-iso-LSD. The inversion of the stereochemistry of the attached diethylcarboxyamido group of d-LSD gives the diastereoisomer (d-iso-LSD) which is a frequent synthetic impurity of d-LSD itself. The corresponding optical antipodes l-LSD and l-iso-LSD are also known and have been tasted. All three are completely inactive: d-iso-LSD shows no psychological changes at an oral dose of 4 milligrams; l-LSD none at up to 10 milligrams orally; and l-iso-LSD none at 500 micrograms orally. These dramatic decreases in potency show both the stereoselectivity of the native LSD molecule in producing its central effects, and the LSD-free purity of these isomers.

http://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/tihkal/tihkal26.shtml

 

[Ismene]

^^
And?

 

[laugh]

"Orange Sunshine: The Brotherhood of Eternal Love"

i urge anyone interested in this thread to get a copy of the above book it is really informative and interesting.
dont tell anyone but i downloaded a 'free' copy.

 

[pharmakos]

^^
And?

^^ differences in potency can be due to varying levels of impurities from poor synthesis, though.

I don't think so - a molecule is either LSD or it isn't LSD. Sure there can different amounts of it on the blotter but "impurities"? If there are any "impurities" then they'll need to be more potent and psychoactive than even LSD - because the "impurities" are overwhelming the effect of the LSD otherwise you wouldn't notice them. I can't think of any such impurities.

false. i don't want to get too far into synthesis discussion since it is not allowed here, but "its either LSD or it isn't LSD" isn't entirely true

Let me mention in passing, that there are three stereoisomers possible for d-LSD. There are d-iso-LSD, l-LSD, and l-iso-LSD. The inversion of the stereochemistry of the attached diethylcarboxyamido group of d-LSD gives the diastereoisomer (d-iso-LSD) which is a frequent synthetic impurity of d-LSD itself. The corresponding optical antipodes l-LSD and l-iso-LSD are also known and have been tasted. All three are completely inactive: d-iso-LSD shows no psychological changes at an oral dose of 4 milligrams; l-LSD none at up to 10 milligrams orally; and l-iso-LSD none at 500 micrograms orally. These dramatic decreases in potency show both the stereoselectivity of the native LSD molecule in producing its central effects, and the LSD-free purity of these isomers.

depending on what methods you use in synthesis, there can be varying ratios of these isomers in your final product, leading to differences in potency (and some say differences in effect)

 

[Ismene]

"its either LSD or it isn't LSD" isn't entirely true

LSD is LSD. A stereoisomer of LSD is a stereoisomer of LSD. Agreed?

and some say differences in effect

So they have effects on you more noticable than LSD even tho "All three are completely inactive"?