Why Plants???

[daddysgone]

Im not sure if this has been discussed at much length here, but I often find myself wondering why with all the varying life on this planet in all its varying form, the Plant Kingdom is responsible for such a majority of the psychoactive drugs in existence. While I dont have specific data or numbers to quote, I am quite confident that an overwhelming majority of the psychoactive substances we use, either come directly from plants, or are partially synthesized from plants.
this is not at all to say "all drugs come from plants". I am aware of many pyschoactive drugs that come from other sources. In fact, I made a thread here in ADD regarding my experimentation with dermorphin (an opioid peptide which has been isolated from the skin of a certain frog). still, it seems that substances like this are the rare exception to the general rule.
so, what is it about plants that is responsible for this dominant role they play in the production of psychoactive substances? why have we not found many psychoactive drugs in the animal kingdom for example? have we merely not looked close enough? it certainly would be interesting if we entered a new era ushered in by the discovery of a whole host of animal based drugs and substances. anyway, just a thought. anyone have any ideas?

 

[Ham-milton]

Animals are unlikely to produce much in the way of psychoactives- they can't be continually dosed.

Those that do produce their own psychoactives are doing so for protection.

The reason most of our current psychoactives are based on chemicals found in plants is because they have traditional use, we look at what's in them making them effective, then base new thigns on that.

We have created some entirely new things, but we've only recently gotten really good at it (ie: the JWH- naphthoylindole cannabinoid series).

 

[nonnihilnitoris]

I would say it's because we eat many more types of plants than we do animals, and eating them is generally how we find out about their psychoactive properties.

In the last month, I have eaten beef, chicken, fish (tuna), and quail. In the same amount of time, I've eaten more than 30 different plants and fungi (yeast, mushrooms, etc...).

I also think that generally, in animals, the more complex and possibly psychoactive substances tend to be present only in small amounts in the brain, or as a defensive chemical in the fangs or flesh (i.e. venom or poison). Plants tend to be less specialized and so whatever chemicals they contain are generally spread throughout (present in the leaves, stems, roots, etc...) making them easier to detect, whether by a scientist or a curious and hungry native.

I think fungi are closer to animals, but putting that aside, the only drugs I know to come from animals are DMT (found in the brains of many vertebrates and also some sponges) and bufotenin (found in the venom of a specific toad).

 

[Psychedelics_r_best]

The only thing that makes a chemical a psychoactive drug is that it is similar enough to your own neurotransmitters and different enough to cross the Blood Brain Barrier. Every monoamine neurotransmitter is, in a sense, a psychoactive drug. It is obvious that other forms of life will evolve various chemicals similar to our monoamine neurotransmitters because it gives them an advantage over the animals that eat or use them in some way or another. Now, the presence of DMT in many plants is somewhat a mystery. It is almost as if we are meant to use it in order to carry out some fundamental function in the universe. That function, in fact, may be the necessity for any system that exists to be realized in it's entirety by a conscious organism that resides within it, as is dictated by the logical deducations of quantum mechanics.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I got in an interesting conversation with a marine biologist this weekend about brominated phenethylamines found in sea sponges (I think I forget was a little twasted). Very cool stuff. She claims it is an untapped frontier...in the next few decades we will discover many, many new compounds.

 

[swilow]

^In the big appendices to TiHKAL (I assume you have th book andy?) there is a mammoth list of various psychedelics/psychedelic-type structures found in marine life...

I don't even think thats really true. Most mammals and general animals produce endogenous phenthylamines and tryptamines which are undeniably psychoactive. After all, we are alive and congiscent are we not? Something in our brains causes that sensation...its pretty good shit too

 

[(zonk)]

I think there are just as many psychoactive substances in animals as in plants/fungi, it's just that plants are a more viable source. Like you said, there are many frogs/toads, there are a ton of sea creatures,there are isolates of venoms from many bugs and animals have alot, just in such minute quantities that it's not worth it to destroy the creature, and peform a complex extraction of these chems from what ever remote part of thier body it's found in.

 

[Ham-milton]

I don't even think thats really true. Most mammals and general animals produce endogenous phenthylamines and tryptamines which are undeniably psychoactive. After all, we are alive and congiscent are we not? Something in our brains causes that sensation...its pretty good shit too

I'm not saying that there aren't things neccessary for the normal function of our brains, but rather that things that will disrupt our brains (to produce a psychedelic or stimulating or whatever state) will not be found; there may be some animals that use something else as a neurotransmitter that in our brains would be usefully psychoactive, but i'm not aware of any.

 

[(zonk)]

cats produce mescaline related chem, if u feed them mesc it has no effect. I'm sure ur aware of DMT. supposedly adrenochrome. Skitzos are said to have psychoactive chems that norml people dont have, agmatine, endopsychosin(dissociatives), endorphin related. dopamine/pea, ghb, morphine...

 

[FrostyMcFailure]

hmm perhaps theirs some sorta animal derived compounds in which would make plants trip face, a lil effort of both sides ppl.

 

[MurphyClox]

Honestly said, most of the explanations stated don't make much sense to me. The one that hit it best was the first post by Hammilton:

Those that do produce their own psychoactives are doing so for protection.

In contrary to animals, plants and fungi can't move with considerable pace. They just stick to the place where they were "born", very much unlike us. To survive, most of them developed chemical means of defense against their feeding predators, including us. This is IMHO the main reason.

The fact that plants were studied thoroughly more than animals explains this disequilibrium only partially. First, this shortfall was caught up during the last decades. Second, animals (even frogs!) are MUCH more similar to us then any plant, considering the biochemical processes. Thus, lots of compounds occurring in animals of all fashions are too similar (or even equal) to our own body chemistry to have an effect. Of course (!!!), there are indeed biochemical differences between humans and other animals but that is no comparison to the plant kingdom! Let me give just one simple example: The very most animals are not capable of (bio)synthesising aromatic compounds, including essentials like L-Phe, L-Trp and L-Tyr. Plants, in contrary, are. And these 3 amino acids serve as the basic skeleton of the huge majority of (psychoactive) alkaloids, don't they?

I have to repeat it: The most plants developed some kinda phytotoxins during the evolution. The fact that we can eat some of them without any harm is just due we have adapted, too (not speaking about cultivated species like corn, wheat or most vegetables, were a lot of harmful contents were deleted during centuries of breeding). This is the basic principle of evolution. Without adaption = extinction!

Peace! Murphy

 

[CH3CH2OH]

MurphyClox is correct. Plants produce these chemicals as a defense against predation. The Chemicals are called Secondary Compounds and they do not serve a purpose in the functioning of the plant, but rather they deter animals from eating them by creating uncomfortable feelings. however we take measured amounts to have a desired effect, we could not sustain ourselves on these plants though, due to the chemicals in them thus preventing us from eating a lot of them. This is a large reason why so many plants have psychoactive compounds.

 

[swilow]

^The problem is that things such as DMT; is destroyed in the gut. For cannabis to be harmful, one would have to consume a huge amount, proportionate to size. Mescaline, in the case of San Pedro- one would have to approach the spikey (!!) cactus, pierce the waxy flesh and eat a very large amount (once again) of bitter, disgusting flesh (which is probably what serves as the deterrent if anything). Cocaine is largely destroyed in the stomach also. I've heard it said that the evolutionary 'idea' behind these things is to disorient a life-form so as to not to be able find the plant again....That seems sort of plausible.

I think the fact that there are extremely toxic compounds such as aconite or strynchine points to these compounds being deterrents. They do work I believe . The psychedelic compounds suggest, to me at least, that we share a common evolutionary path with these plants/fungiis/etc.

 

[fizzacyst]

Cocaine will kill insects stone fucking dead, though. At least some of them.

DMT may just be a random-ass happening that didn't harm the evolutionary standing of a species. The amino acids and enzymes used pretty much all have some other function in the plant (making stuff it needs to survive). It it happened to produce such a compound and store it rather than use it as an intermediary or whatever else it might not harm anything and thus not hinder the plant. Really, all that stuff is pretty basic for plants... I'm quite certain that DMT synthesis in plants is more common than is currently known. Its something thats just bound to happen, we just haven't stumbled on much of it yet.

It may be that cannabinoids have some other function, too. Don't plants grown at much higher elevation have more THCV? it could be an environmental response.

Also bear in mind that humans consume a lot of things deliberately that plants use as a defense mechanism... we event promote this and ensure their survival because of it... such as peppers, coffee, etc.

Caffeine will kill a lot of bugs too.

We are so much more complicated, and one of the relatively few species that will deliberately seek out inebriates (which muddles things when trying to look at it totally from a selection/evolutionary POV).

 

[wungchow]

Functions of common plant-borne chemicals


THC: protects the plant's cells from UV radiation. absorbs UV wavelengths.

Nicotine: kills insects

Capsaicin: causes a burning sensation to herbivores, does not affect birds

caffeine: kills insects

atropine/scopolamine: kills insects

Since the mammalian CNS works differently than the insect CNS, a lot of chemicals produced by the plant to kill insects have pleasurable or hallucinogenic effects on humans

 

[wungchow]

What's interesting is that almost all the major drugs of abuse are plant-derived.

Cocaine
Heroin
Tobacco
Marijuana

Plants are basically mini laboratories that will synthesize your favorite drugs for free. Just add water.

 

[fastandbulbous]

DMT may just be a random-ass happening that didn't harm the evolutionary standing of a species.

Any evolutionary process that used up energy, but didn't confer an advantage is de facto placing that organism at a disadvantage and would be 'phased out' through natural selection. Just because we don't know why a plant does something doesn't ,mean it doesn't have a valid evolutionary role

 

[MurphyClox]

Any evolutionary process that used up energy, but didn't confer an advantage is de facto placing that organism at a disadvantage and would be 'phased out' through natural selection. Just because we don't know why a plant does something doesn't ,mean it doesn't have a valid evolutionary role

I completely agree here: I strongly believe that every compound, either in us, the animal kingdom or any given plant, fungi, whatever has its duty. The fact that we often do not know this "duty" doesn't interfere with this statement. The compounds will fulfill their role even though we don't know about it. Why should a plant "care" if we know something about it or not? Rhetorical question...

About what Swilow said concerning San Pedro-cacti: Yes, the plant is already well equipped to keep us annoying omnivores away (spines, bitter taste, etc.), but who said that mescaline was supposed to be primarily against humans? Maybe it serves to deter some completely other species... Not maybe - probably, I'd bet.

 

[MurphyClox]

One correction/addition about my statement that most plants developed some kinda poisons against feeding predators (...is this term correct?):
Plz don't understand me wrong. YES, most plants/fungi developed some poisons. But beware, because NOT ALL secondary metabolites serve this role, but have many many more tasks (attraction of pollinating insects, etc... the tasks are numerous). I.e.: Not every secondary metabolite is supposed to be a poison.

Just to clear that out.

 

[CH3CH2OH]

I also did not mean that all chemicals in plants are to discourage predation, merely that many serve this purpose. Of course, like MurphyClox stated, the chemicals can serve many other purposes. I was merely stating that many of the chemicals humans enjoy from plants are in place to stop predators from eating the plant.