4 - That the inverse impact of taking 1-2grams of ascorbic acid or drinking a glass of citrus juice would in fact NOT occur? Even though it's explicitly warned about by pharmacy. (evidence please?)
This is pretty much the thing right here. A massive quantity of vitamin C not found in normal food or drink will eventually be sufficient to increase stomach pH to the point where it might affect the absorption of amphetamines (maybe "anything with a phenethylamine backbone -- again, not heard of that). Yes, of course. That's a simple fact.
The point is that the mere fact of it doesn't mean it's reasonable to defend it like it matters in the context of the question. My amusement at seeing your continued insistence on defending it like it does (esp. your guesses at my motivations!), and my amusement at having to explain this is length, has been part of what's kept me in this funny little thing.The amount of vitamin C
the myth is concerned with is common amounts -- say the 75 mg in a glass of OJ, or the amount in a Flinstone's tablet -- in common conditions where it is thought to have its own independent effect or it
wouldn't be a myth of concern. It would have never been a myth in the first place if those weren't the assumptions behind it. It would just be wacky. That's the whole understanding I'm working with regarding the folly of this defense and the reason I'm so dismissive of the points about acid. There is nothing special about vitamin C in the context of the question. If there is nothing special about it the considerate answer to the question of whether vitamin C will stop or substantially affect a trip is "no," not "yes, but only when Saturn is in retrograde, or ... oh, and, by the way, I like toast. Let me tell you another thing..."
That's why I think this has been so amusing. So many things that aren't vitamin C and so aren't part of the question (including other vitamins with a carboxyl group) fall under the inclusion criteria of acidifying agents that could affect absorption in some amount. Beyond that, uncommon quantities of water might also be rightly expected to affect a trip. Certain, I don't know, tart tasting things might affect a trip, and vitamin C is tart, so let's worry about it for that reason as long as we're on our way! Ridiculous quantities of lots of things will indirectly affect trips through some chain in the web of infinite causation if we go out of our way to ingest them. What's the point of mentioning this and arguing it in the context of a simple question, though? The myth is also concerned with vitamin C having some extreme efficacy, to the point where it can stop a trip. That's another part of the context that tightens the range of considerate response.
It does come down to common sense being the arbiter of what is worth mentioning and worrying about. It's about getting a handle on things. It's about being able to make a judgment and providing answers to practical questions based on practical considerations versus considering that something having a mere possibility of some indirect affect in some uncommon circumstance not asked about justifies it's inclusion and defense in deliberation (this is a similar problem to the one we had in that old thread about the likelihood of LSD impurities in single microgram amounts making a measurable independent contribution to subjective effect). As soon as we consider the merely possible, or our inability to absolutely disprove some trifle to be worth our time in answering simple questions that are seeking simple answers that are to be acted on at some point we're inviting paralysis, exasperation (boy are we!), loose association, misunderstanding, the recalling of tangential points being the central substance of an answer, and on and on. That why this is not some arbitrary deference to common sense, nor inflation to an iron-clad rule. It's being considerate to the scope of a question and empathetic to common understanding. It's about naturally and generally defaulting to a standard of elegance rather than to some random orbit of association (unless a question explicitly requests it) so we can mutually understand each other and stay on track. It's what makes thoughts about most things possible to believe in, collaborate, and act on. It's how we get on with our friggin lives, heh. That's why this has been so funny to me. The essence of it was never really a dispute about fact at all, nor an attempt at debunking, nor factual right and wrong -- just a comedy of manners and misperceptions.