I'm uncertain if psychedelics would improve my life or not. Advice?

[Xorkoth]

I don't know by what sort of crazy co-evolutionary purpose that plants exist which produce such profound effects on the human mind, but they certainly do exist. Even if the purpose was originally to try to get things not to eat them, there is certainly more purpose to them for us than that. It could be that it was designed to ward off animals eating them, but that humans, due to our cerebral cortexes, are able to experience something much different from the effects other animals would experience. Who knows, it's interesting to think about though.

 

[jason7]

I wouldn't agree though that shrooms have psilocybin solely to discourage people from eating them because that then begs the questions, why do they have psilocybin at all? If we weren't meant to eat the mushrooms because they have psilocybin, they wouldn't have it, or, it would have a much more consistently negative effect. Just my analysis of the situation.

Yeah, it's hard to figure out really. They don't want us to eat them and yet something about their effects intrigues us and makes us want to try them again. I think they may have the long term in mind though. Sure, sometimes they make you feel great, but if you eat them enough times at some point they will scare the living bejeebers out of you and you'll never want to touch them again. I guess that effect doesn't stop everybody but it certainly worked on me. Just the sight of them growing strikes fear in my heart now.

 

[pmoseman]

I've never heard The LD50 says nothing about non-lethal toxic effects though. A chemical may have a large LD50, but may produce illness at very small exposure levels. It is incorrect to say that chemicals with small LD50s are more dangerous than chemicals with large LD50s, they are simply more toxic. The danger, or risk of adverse effect of chemicals, is mostly determined by how they are used, not by the inherent toxicity of the chemical itself.f psilocybin being considered moderately toxic, as there has never been proof of long-term physiological damage in any way - not from what I have seen anyway, so I'm not sure I agree with that. If you can find any sort of scientific literature that demonstrates any possible neurotoxicity of psilocybin, I'd be interested to read about it, though at the moment I'm can't say I buy it. Of course, there is the argument that EVERYTHING can be harmful in a large enough dose, even things like water and oxygen. But one has to consider the practicality of consuming a large enough dose, of whatever it is. With psilocybin, any level of noticeable toxicity seems very unlikely.

There are different forms of toxicity, ways of receiving a toxic dose, speed of effect, how fully one might recover, how and what it damages, and so on.

You wouldn't believe it but there is some kind of ethical concern with testing toxicity on humans?

Acute toxicity has to do with a single lethal dose for 50% of test subjects (LD50); as opposed to chronic toxicity which requires multiple doses. It is not tested for every substance or on every species.

Intravenous exposure to rats in mg/kg:

Strychnine - 1
Glutaraldehyde - 13
Caffeine - 105
Psilocybin - 280
Alcohol - 1440
Fructose - 15000

Just to give a sense of scale I suppose. If you look at a standard Material Safety Data (MSDS) you see toxicity listed as the LD50.

"It is incorrect to say that chemicals with small LD50s are more dangerous than chemicals with large LD50s, they are simply more toxic. The danger, or risk of adverse effect of chemicals, is mostly determined by how they are used, not by the inherent toxicity of the chemical itself." - 1993 Dose-Response Relationships In Toxicology

This is talking about the difference between something being toxic and hazardous.
People claiming certain recreational drugs are not toxic are wrong.

I would not assume psilocybin is innocent of neurotoxicity until proven guilty; lasting effects can mimic brain damage.

There is a famous saying that everything is a poison depending on the dose. I disagree with certain interpretations of this. Check out the last column of the periodic table for examples.

 

[whiteroom67]

There are different forms of toxicity, ways of receiving a toxic dose, speed of effect, how fully one might recover, how and what it damages, and so on.

You wouldn't believe it but there is some kind of ethical concern with testing toxicity on humans?

Acute toxicity has to do with a single lethal dose for 50% of test subjects (LD50); as opposed to chronic toxicity which requires multiple doses. It is not tested for every substance or on every species.

Intravenous exposure to rats in mg/kg:

Strychnine - 1
Glutaraldehyde - 13
Caffeine - 105
Psilocybin - 280
Alcohol - 1440
Fructose - 15000

Just to give a sense of scale I suppose. If you look at a standard Material Safety Data (MSDS) you see toxicity listed as the LD50.

"It is incorrect to say that chemicals with small LD50s are more dangerous than chemicals with large LD50s, they are simply more toxic. The danger, or risk of adverse effect of chemicals, is mostly determined by how they are used, not by the inherent toxicity of the chemical itself." - 1993 Dose-Response Relationships In Toxicology

This is talking about the difference between something being toxic and hazardous.
People claiming certain recreational drugs are not toxic are wrong.

I would not assume psilocybin is innocent of neurotoxicity until proven guilty; lasting effects can mimic brain damage.

There is a famous saying that everything is a poison depending on the dose. I disagree. Check out the last column of the periodic table for examples.

I don't agree that long-term results of psilocbyin by default mimic brain damage because it depends on what you consider brain damage. If you consider psychological trauma brain damage, then sure, but I don't. Assuming guilt until proven innocence can be a rightly cautious but not always accurate practice. The burden of proof lies on the one who claims the existence of evidence, rather than the absence of evidence. Of course, it's never wrong to be cautious though, especially when experimenting with mind-altering substances. Ethics in human testing of psychoactives is only violated if the testing is done against the person's will, knowledge, or consent, etc.

That link doesn't work by the way, it says I would need to install software to view it? But it doesn't say what I would need to install, it doesn't give me anything to install.

I would seriously question whatever source you got the that list from though. Unless there's a different explanation to it that I'm not seeing here. I cannot accept the proposal that psilocybin is in anyway more physically toxic than alcohol without any sort of scientific evidence to back that up, or at least obvious observations that are not solely subjective. In all of my reading, personal experience, and personal observation of other users, I have never seen any evidence of this at all. In fact I have observed the opposite. The toxic effects of alcohol are well-known and documented and I have come across very few people who displayed anything resembling long-term damage from psilocybin use. The only exceptions were: 1) someone who had a history of schizophrenia in his family and a heavy use of psilocybin seemed to trigger it. However one can argue that any traumatic experience can trigger a genetically dormant mental disorder to rise to the surface. And 2), I have heard of some (very few) people who overuse psychedelics so much to the point where they become so out of touch with reality, sometimes severely, if high enough doses are used frequently. This is almost always reversed though with extended periods of abstinence, indicating that it isn't exactly toxicity, just a severely altered state of perception, and does not seem to be permanent (unless one is schizophrenic, as represented in the last example). My cousin works in social services including drug rehab and has personally observed this, though it is rare.

Also, what substances/chemicals/compounds would you say are not toxic at a large enough dose? I honestly can think of nothing. As I said, water and oxygen are 2 examples of compounds that our bodies need at the utmost foundation of necessity, and yet even they are toxic in large enough doses. What would you say is something that would illustrate the contrary? I'd be curious to know. Like I said that link doesn't work when I try to open it. Not sure why. But maybe I'm missing what you're saying; what do you mean by certain interpretations of it?

I don't know by what sort of crazy co-evolutionary purpose that plants exist which produce such profound effects on the human mind, but they certainly do exist. Even if the purpose was originally to try to get things not to eat them, there is certainly more purpose to them for us than that. It could be that it was designed to ward off animals eating them, but that humans, due to our cerebral cortexes, are able to experience something much different from the effects other animals would experience. Who knows, it's interesting to think about though.

Yeah, I've always wondered how something like a dog would experience the effect of something like mushrooms. Of course, I would ever feed my dog mushrooms... I would be way too nervous about what would happen and depending on the effect of its outcome could even possibly be considered animal abuse. Really though, it would especially be really interesting to see how apes like chimps, gorillas and orangutans would react.

For example, Koko the gorilla is incredible, and could be considered incredibly smart by ape standards in so many ways. Seeing how she would react and perceive a mushroom experience would really be something, especially considering Terrence McKenna's theories in his book "Food of the Gods".

 

[perpetualdawn]

Pmoseman: what do you mean re: the last column of periodic table?

The LD50s you listed highlight the difference between hazard and toxicity well. It's probably fair to consider alchohol to be more dangerous (hazardous) than psilocybin, yet psilocybin is far more toxic, at least in rats. Alchohol can be said to be more hazardous because of the way (quantity, regularity etc) it is used, it's inebriating and addictive character etc.

 

[whiteroom67]

Yes I'm not sure I'm understanding the difference between toxicity and being more dangerous/hazardous being presented here. Certainly one can choose to throw themselves out of a window for example, while under the influence of either substance (in my opinion, if they did this, they were pretty mentally unstable in the first place, regardless of which substance they were under the influence of, or if any at all). In that sense either can be "hazardous".

As far as the substance causing direct physical damage though, that is what I am considering as toxicity.

Alcohol (when abused) = liver damage, organ failure, brain cell death, physical dependency, etc, many of which are not reversed with absitenence
Psilocybin (when abused) = severe distortions of reality, which are usually (not always) reversed with absitenence

Now of course, as many psychonauts would probably hate to admit, there certainly is more of a chance of a one-time use of psilocybin possibly causing a long-term problem or psychological issue than there is with a one-time use of alcohol, sure (unless they drink to the point of alcohol poisoning and die), but is that what you are referring to as toxicity? Despite it being considered a risk, I wouldn't refer to that as toxicity. Unless it's something else you're talking about.

 

[pmoseman]

Toxicity - take a pure substance and inject a measured dose into a rat, wait for the rat to die. The quantity at which 50% of the rats die is the LD50. Lower the quantity, higher the toxicity.

If the substance explodes in your mouth, blinds you, and drives you insane; those are hazards. Not related to toxicity.

 

[whiteroom67]

Right, that's what I suspected. Now I did a little research, and according to what I found, you are right in one sense - the LD50 for intravenously administered psilocybin in rats is about 280 mg/kg, while the LD50 for orally administered ethanol is much higher, at 7060 mg/kg, which would conclude that the LD50 for psilocybin is much lower, presenting a higher toxicity; but really, it's pretty useless knowledge and inconsequential if you think about it. The reason being how practical this information actually is in the real world. All one has to do is look how how many alcohol users die from alcohol, and compare it to how many psilocybin users die from psilocybin. The active dosage of psilocybin is much lower than its LD50 or apparent level of toxicity. Alcohol's threshold effect level is much closer to its LD50. The ability to consume the amount of fungal material to reach anywhere near toxic levels is totally impractical and would be very difficult to do even if one tried. Toxic levels of alcohol however are much easier to consume in a single sitting and this is apparent as it happens all the time every day all over the world. The fact that there has not been one human death caused directly from recreational or entheogenic psilocybin ingestion recorded, at least that I am aware of, proves this. There are, on the other hand, numerous deaths directly due to over-consumption of alcohol which still proves alcohol is a much more dangerous substance to tangle with, even when considering single-sitting circumstances, as toxic levels are much more easily reached. You can take this and even apply it to physical damage caused, as opposed to actual death, and the comparative damage levels still apply (i.e. liver damage, organ damage, brain cell death from alcohol vs nothing recorded from psilocybin).

 

[pmoseman]

You can't make such a simple comparison. The number of uses for alcohol mean that it is present in more situations. In terms of acute alcohol poisoning (toxicity), deaths due to alcohol occur most often from products not intended for drinking.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/110-120.htm

There are more deaths from the chronic toxicity, as you pointed out, but there is a divide. It is relatively easy to understand the hazards from alcohol, which include increased risk of a psychotic disorder, due to the legal status of the drug.

Lack of evidence is not a clear rational for why any illegal drug is safe.

 

[whiteroom67]

You can't make such a simple comparison. The number of uses for alcohol mean that it is present in more situations. In terms of acute alcohol poisoning (toxicity), deaths due to alcohol occur most often from products not intended for drinking.
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/110-120.htm

That's precisely why I said "percentage of alcohol deaths out of the number of alcohol users" - to make up for this difference in alcohol's increased presence; and also I was specifically referring to ethanol, not just alcohol in general.

If you compare the percentage of ethanol deaths out of ethanol users (which includes infrequent users), to the percentage of psilocybin deaths out of psilocybin users, it is still obviously much higher. There are no official scientifically-confirmed cases of psilocybin poisoning, and that is all there is to it. Ethanol poisoning due to intended alcoholic beverage consumption on the other hand, is prominent. It's as simple as that.

And I know lack of evidence is not a clear rational, that's why I said it is good to be cautious when consuming any psychoactive, but when 99.99% of psilocybin users in recorded history do not die directly from psilocybin ingestion, especially considering the wide variety of doses consumed, one can make a reasonable assumption that it is generally physically safe to consume.

In this article you posted, it even says right in the beginning, "Beverage alcohol (i.e., ethanol) is a psychoactive drug that changes brain chemistry and can become lethal in high doses." And in the chart: 2.2% of alcohol-related deaths are due to actual alcoholic beverage consumption. That's all well and good, but the number of recorded psilocybin-related deaths due to psilocybin ingestion is 0%. Or at least very close to 0%. Out of millions of psilocybin ingestions every year, there are I think maybe 2 deaths in history believed to be associated with magic mushroom ingestion, and it is not even confirmed that psilocybin was the primary cause of death.

Also, you would have to look at what percentage of ethanol consumers die from intentional ethanol ingestion, not how many ethanol deaths in general are from ethanol ingestion. That is a different statistic. Ethanol is lethal in high doses. Psilocybin, generally speaking, is not. At least not in any sort of practical context. Therefore, even though psilocybin may be technically/scientifically more toxic, in a practical context, it is not; especially compared to ethanol.

What would need to be done to prove the contrary is have several sources posted citing confirmed cases of psilocybin poisoning in an everyday context, and also provide statistical proof that the percentage of psilocybin related deaths out of total users is generally as high or higher than ethanol related deaths out of total users. Then my mindset regarding the issue may be changed.

 

[jason7]

Considering that it takes about 2 kg of shrooms for a person to be in danger of dying, I'd say the acute toxicity is not a major concern. It's the tripping out that's the problem. Let's just say there's a steep dose/response curve. A little is pretty nice most of the time, with some really clear and artistic visuals. But it can get pretty wild at higher doses. Once I could feel presences around me without seeing them. I could sense where they were. Their presences were roundish areas about 3 feet in diameter. I could feel their shape. It was very tangible. Then I got an electric-like flow of energy going up through my spine for maybe 10 minutes at one point. I guess that's what Kundalini feels like.

Then I went through a phase where I remembered every dream I ever dreamed, all the ones I hadn't consciously remembered before. You know how you can't remember most dreams after you wake up? Well, they're all stored in your memory. You can't normally access those memories but during that part of the trip I could remember all those dreams. It was like oh yeah, I remember that dream now. But the problem is that some of those dreams were pretty weird and then I was conscious of them again. I think that's why your brain doesn't normally let you remember most dreams. It would be too overwhelming. Anyway, I would remember random long forgotten dreams. The trip had different phases like that. Near the end, the phase where I was completely mad came in. Then after the peak of the madness, when I was the craziest I could possibly get, it suddenly wore off and I returned to completely straight within a period of about 10 minutes. Whew, that was a nasty one. That kundalini spiinal energy flow was pretty freaky and intense.

 

[Shimmerchasm]

Obviously I'm no expert but it seems to me that a trip is only as good or as bad as you make it, or allow it to be. By "good" I don't necessarily mean pleasant.
A friend of mine had a horrifying experience on LSD. He took it in NYC (I think at night) and everyone's faces turned black and they were all after him trying to kill him. Everyone everywhere, in the streets and on the subway. He was running from them, trying to get away. He said he never felt fear like that in his life, and he was known to put himself in high risk situations with shady people.
He died of a heroin overdose last year that I think may have been intentional.
He had MAJOR issues with his parents and was hypersensitive and generally had a lot going on inside. I wonder now if someone were to help him figure out what it was he was "running from", what was this dark force that was out to get him, would he have been able to solve some of his issues? Would he be alive today? I didn't know anything about psychedelics at the time and I don't think he knew much either. Obviously his set and setting were as bad as could be, but still.
He was an addict, and he was in it to escape reality, not to learn anything.
I don't know. Just a thought.

I think if you're uneducated and not very analytical your trips will be meaningless. Some people are overcome with emotion just looking at a beautiful flower or their pet or the full moon, other people are sort of just looking and that's it.

 

[whiteroom67]

jason that sounds pretty intense, around what dose was that do you remember?

and shimmer yeah that sounds nuts... I always say anyone who tries using psychedelics to escape is in for a pretty rude awakening. Also, that kind of reinforces my choice to almost always trip alone. It always seems that other people are what make a trip bad/annoying/not pleasurable.

 

[pmoseman]

That's precisely why I said "percentage of alcohol deaths out of the number of alcohol users" - to make up for this difference in alcohol's increased presence; and also I was specifically referring to ethanol, not just alcohol in general.

If you compare the percentage of ethanol deaths out of ethanol users (which includes infrequent users), to the percentage of psilocybin deaths out of psilocybin users, it is still obviously much higher. There are no official scientifically-confirmed cases of psilocybin poisoning, and that is all there is to it. Ethanol poisoning due to intended alcoholic beverage consumption on the other hand, is prominent. It's as simple as that.

And I know lack of evidence is not a clear rational, that's why I said it is good to be cautious when consuming any psychoactive, but when 99.99% of psilocybin users in recorded history do not die directly from psilocybin ingestion, especially considering the wide variety of doses consumed, one can make a reasonable assumption that it is generally physically safe to consume.

In this article you posted, it even says right in the beginning, "Beverage alcohol (i.e., ethanol) is a psychoactive drug that changes brain chemistry and can become lethal in high doses." And in the chart: 2.2% of alcohol-related deaths are due to actual alcoholic beverage consumption. That's all well and good, but the number of recorded psilocybin-related deaths due to psilocybin ingestion is 0%. Or at least very close to 0%. Out of millions of psilocybin ingestions every year, there are I think maybe 2 deaths in history believed to be associated with magic mushroom ingestion, and it is not even confirmed that psilocybin was the primary cause of death.

Also, you would have to look at what percentage of ethanol consumers die from intentional ethanol ingestion, not how many ethanol deaths in general are from ethanol ingestion. That is a different statistic. Ethanol is lethal in high doses. Psilocybin, generally speaking, is not. At least not in any sort of practical context. Therefore, even though psilocybin may be technically/scientifically more toxic, in a practical context, it is not; especially compared to ethanol.

What would need to be done to prove the contrary is have several sources posted citing confirmed cases of psilocybin poisoning in an everyday context, and also provide statistical proof that the percentage of psilocybin related deaths out of total users is generally as high or higher than ethanol related deaths out of total users. Then my mindset regarding the issue may be changed.

As far as I can tell, acute toxicity from ethanol beverages amount to 7 deaths a year among more than 100 million users.

99.999993% of recreational alcohol users are safe from poisoning.

The deaths in these cases come from coroner reports. I have no idea what Erowid believes is required to list a death as real, but they clearly do not list all. They do not recognize a 6 year old child dying from psilocybin in 1962. Deaths from psilocybin are not listed separately in the CDC database and I am sure alcohol being common makes a big difference.

What does chronic psilocybin use do to a user? We have no idea. How long were alcohol and cigarettes widely used and studied before uncovering their chronic toxicity?

 

[Shimmerchasm]

A friend suggested I try marijuana first. I guess his way of thinking is "baby steps". That makes sense on one level but for my purposes I'm not sure if it's necessary. I'm curious about pot but I don't really feel like it will give me the experience I'm looking for.

I mean, I'm already being visited by jaguar goddesses in my meditations, hah. (Seriously. Super cool. And I've only just started seriously meditating.)

 

[whiteroom67]

A friend suggested I try marijuana first. I guess his way of thinking is "baby steps". That makes sense on one level but for my purposes I'm not sure if it's necessary. I'm curious about pot but I don't really feel like it will give me the experience I'm looking for.

I mean, I'm already being visited by jaguar goddesses in my meditations, hah. (Seriously. Super cool. And I've only just started seriously meditating.)

You could try marijuana first, a lot of people tend to think this way, but I would agree that it probably doesn't really matter. They are both psychedelics but at the same time have very different characteristic effects. I personally don't smoke pot too much anymore as it tends to makes me anxious and/or insecure more often than not. You can consider the fact also that most Central/South American indigenous use mushrooms, and even Ayahuasca, without ever smoking pot first. Trying pot first wouldn't be a horrible idea in either case, but it's whatever. You may have a great spiritual experience from it, but it's usually more just fun/recreational. Keep in mind also that if you did smoke pot, you may get paranoid or anxious from it, but not necessarily from other psychedelics. I myself am one of these people. So really, it doesn't matter what you try first. What matters most is your set and setting, and general knowledge about what to expect from the experience (generally). Here is a good resource to use for the classic psychedelics like psilocybin, LSD and Mescaline: http://www.luminist.org/archives/session.htm though you can do your own research also. It mainly mentions LSD, but you can refer to it for any of the classic psychedelics above. You may want someone experienced there to keep an eye on you, but I never did my first times and I was fine - I actually prefer tripping alone most of the time. But do what what you think feels right.

 

[pmoseman]

Using marijuana first is meaningless superstition.

 

[Ismene]

As far as I can tell, acute toxicity from ethanol beverages amount to 7 deaths a year among more than 100 million users.

That doesn't sound right pmose - I can think of two rock stars who died of drinking too much alcohol just off the top of my head. Amy Winehouse and John Bonham. Hendrix too if you count alcohol and sleeping pills.

Deaths from psilocybin are not listed separately in the CDC database and I am sure alcohol being common makes a big difference.

Perhaps - tho when the legal status of mushrooms changed in the UK in 2003 you would've expected a massive increase in deaths as use exploded across the country. As far as I'm aware no-one died.

What does chronic psilocybin use do to a user?

What do you call "chronic use"? Psilocybin stops working if you take it every day and most people don't have 5 or 6 hours every day or the ability to grow enough mushrooms so chronic use is impossible. It also isn't addictive in the same sense that alcohol is.

How long were alcohol and cigarettes widely used and studied before uncovering their chronic toxicity?

Not sure what relevance that has to anything.

 

[Ismene]

A friend suggested I try marijuana first. I guess his way of thinking is "baby steps".

Completely different drugs. I've never liked pot but mushrooms are great. Far more beneficial experience.

 

[pmoseman]

There are technical definitions for things like chronic or contributing factor that you will just need to look up, unfortunately.

These data come from the Center for Disease Control (CDC). I posted a study of the data covering 3 years from 1996 to 1998. Deaths where ethanol poisoning was a contributing factor were 1,076 per year. You can read about mixing drugs and how these numbers are interpreted from the study.

If you have some figures to compare apples to apples in the UK, that would be helpful, but the data here is a bit limited. Saying we should expect massive deaths from mushrooms in the UK is unsupported. I would hope for none but would expect an unlucky someone every decade.

Chronic use and death is of course possible. Magic mushrooms contribute to psychotic disorders, which means a lower life expectancy, and so they contribute to deaths.

You can learn a lot from history about what to expect as far as discovering things that we do not know at this time. We did not always know about cancer.