Talk:Psilocybin mushroom/Archive 1

Maria Sabina quote

Where is the reference on the quote by Maria Sabina about the mushrooms loosing purity after westerners discovered them?

Missing info on (nonexistant) harmful effect

I believe that many people who read this article will be looking for info on the horrible negative effects of consumption. Since these (or the absence of these) are not mentioned at any length, most will then assume the worst, or that the negative effects are so obvious that they need not be mentioned.

So one thing this article may need is a section with clear info on the side- and possible long term effects (not just hppd) one way (the best?) to do this would be to list effects in different areas. Unfortunately i neither have time or qualifications to write such descriptions, but here is at least an illustation of what i mean:

physical--->can cause gas, helps against cluster headaces,...
emotional---> bla,bla,bla
mental---> bla, bla, blabla, HPPD,
neurological--
etc, etc.
--Mindzpore 16:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Also in the Sensory section there is a brief definition of synesthesia. This seems somewhat misplaced since the link will take people to a more in-depth explanation anyway. Gabblack 17:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I second this. For example, the LSD article properly talks about addiction and physical dangers. This article needs that too. I remember back in high school, some kids ended up in the hospital due to mushrooms and had their stomachs pumped, though I don't know the full details. By this anecdote it seems mushrooms aren't harmless, at least. I don't know enough to write anything either. BlankAxolotl 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

They must have misidentified their mushrooms because the only reason you would need to get your stomach pumped is if you ate a poisonous lookalike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.167.53.114 (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Amanita Muscaria, Side Effects

"Most users only eat the mushrooms once or twice due to their unpleasant side effects and the tendency for a recreational user to try too much causing very harsh side effects." - from the section "Amanita Muscaria"

Would it make sense to elaborate upon the "unpleasant" and "very harsh" side effects?

habitat section

I thought the shrooms also grew in mulch, pine, wood chips, native trees, wet areas???

you can use stuff like rice cakes... only the plain ones tho... like quaker oate rice cakes... ands an augor (sulture dish medium) mix can be used and is probably more effective

Renaming this page?

The term "magic mushroom", while common, is certainly very colloquial, at least slightly subjective, and I would say not really "encyclopedic". I would suggest renaming the page to "psychedelic mushrooms" (psychedelic merely meaning "mind manifesting", which they certainly are) and having "magic mushrooms" be a redirect to "psychedelic mushrooms". --Erasurehead

Good idea! Haiduc 17:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Haiduc. --Wetman 23:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Countdown. If there are no objections, I'll move the page tomorrow to "Psychedelic Mushrooms" Haiduc 02:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just moved this page. If there are any concerns, post them here. Also, I changed the wording from "Magic mushrooms" to "Psychadelic mushrooms" in general usage to match the title change. I believe I got them all, but it would be a good idea for someone to verify this. --CoderGnome 01:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for changing the "Magic Mushroom" page, but the new name is misspelled. It needs to read "Psychedelic." Sorry for the bother. (posted this to your page before reading your post in full) Haiduc 02:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since we're really concerned about sounding "encyclopedic" and are debating adjectives wouldn't it be best if we changed the title to Psychotropic mushrooms since psychedelic seems to refer to a number of things originating in the sixties?

The term "psychotropic" could be equally dated, and it is vague and unclear. Psychedelic refers to a particular aspect, the "mind manifesting" aspect. No term is ideal but I think this is the best, despite some people's use of it to describe tee shirts. Haiduc 12:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It is mentioned below that a. muscaria is classed as a dissociative and not a psychedelic, so maybe "psychoactive mushroom" would be better? Erasurehead 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Erasurehead's proposal of "psychoactive mushrooms"; A. Muscaria and the P. Cubensis varieties really should be grouped on the same page (annotation: mushrooms with psychoactive properies) to facilitate useful search results. Quickfastgoninja 01:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Erowid website (considered to be a major resource on drugs) classes A. Muscaria as both a "Deleriant" and a "Psychedelic." Nareek 15:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

LSD Health Effects?

What are the associated negative health effects with LSD? I am finding it hard to discern any useful information on google out of all the propaganda (They are bad because you may panic! You can die if you take 100!). Thanks. [1] [2] [3] [4] Genjix 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There really aren't any. Simply put, LSD-25 will cause no harm to the human body (so long as it's not laced with arsenic, or something blatant like that), although I suppose there could be some seretogenic effects. Psychological damage, however, is still a prominent risk, potentially manifesting in ways that would lead one to say that LSD is physically harmful (i.e. PTSD). The most noted but still controversial negative effects of heavy LSD use are flashbacks. Such instances have been documented by many users, but as with most psychedelics, research into this is quite limited and therefore so are the reasons behind these flashback episodes. Quickfastgoninja 03:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

UK legal status & Clause 21

Clause 21 of a new drugs bill by the British government proposes to clarify the legal 'loophole' of psilocybe-containing mushrooms only being illegal once 'prepared' by making ALL psilocybe containing fungi (fresh, dried, whatever) Class A substances. The new law (which would make previously law-abiding users punishable by imprisonment for posession or sale) if passed will come into effect May 2005.

I don't know enough on the legal details of the issue to write a comprehensive section to the article, but it certainly deserves a mention, so that UK users know about the danger of becoming Class A criminals in the near future. I can but offer a link to a more decriptive page, which is openly biased in the debate.

-M

Redundant Article

This article is really a mess, and redundant to boot. There's a statement about "This entry is for Psilocybes and related species; for Fly Agaric, see Amanita muscaria", though there is in fact a lot of material on A. muscaria in this article. I'm really not clear why there should be two separate articles about Psilocybe and Psilocybe as a Psychedelic Mushroom. Once I have completed my rewrite of the Psilocybe article and done some work on the Amanita muscaria article, I intend to reduce this page to a brief disambiguation page pointing to the articles on Psilocybe and Amanita muscaria.

Peter Werner - 20 Jun 2005

The Psilocybe article seems well conceived, and as long as the info here is preserved there I agree with your plan. Haiduc 3 July 2005 14:01 (UTC)

I see the following:

   ...found mainly in the genus Psilocybe (although there are also species that belong to the genera
   Conocybe, Stropharia, Panaeolus, and Copelandia) 

Where will these mushrooms fit in? BTW, Gymnopilus can be added to this list. Graham - 3 July 2005

I don't think this page is redundant at all and Graham has a good point. I think a better strategy than getting rid of this page would be to keep it general and even include info on amanita muscaria, with links to individual articles on psilocybes, other psilocybin containing genera, and amanita muscaria (u. pantherina). Detailed info about particular mushrooms or genera can be in the respective individual article. This article could contain more info about the history and traditional and current use of psychoactive mushrooms. The existence of a well written article on psilocybin mushroom is an excellent complement to a general article on psychoactive mushrooms, but doesn't make the general article superfluous. --Erasurehead

peter, i also think that the page should be kept as more than a redirect- but not much more than that, as most of it is very redundant. imho a short paragraph of background material is probably warranted for the page, with the psylocibe and amanita pages actually having all the detail and info; the above extra genera also need to be taken into account. but ultimately, if you are strongly opposed to this, i'd go along with your opinion- your work on the mushroom pages has been excellent and was greatly needed. --Heah (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

hmmm, the question of whether it's redundant is also a question of where the information should be. General information on psychedelic mushrooms can and should be in this article, while information specific to either psilocybe or amanita muscaria can and should be on those specific pages. I would be more inclined to say that general info on psychedelic mushrooms which is on the psilocybe page should be here, and would be redundant if also on the psilocybe page. It's easy to figure out: just consider the title of the article and think about whether the info you want to present fits in with the more general or more specific topic.

In accord with the comments here, I've cleaned up this article, slightly generalizing it by adding comments and references to other types of psychedelic fungi and have made the parts only refering to psilocybes specific. I have accordingly removed the clean up notice. erasurehead 00:39, 3 August, 2005

Just like to addL this page is not redundant /at all/ not all Psilocybes are psilocybin containing - there's even some people who regard the psychedelic Psilocybes as a seperate genus. AP

While browsing through stuff for cleanup with AWB, it occurred to me that this article shouldn't be covering A. muscaria. The article is "psychedelic mushroom"; as the term psychedelic drug is used here, muscaria isn't included- it's considered a dissociative. So in the name of consistency, A. muscaria really shouldn't be discussed on this page. As psilocybe is only one of several genuses of psilocybin containng mushrooms, i'm not sure that this should be purely a redirect . . . --He:ah? 02:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that this page was originally named "magic mushroom" and magic mushroom redirects here. The page was renamed (my original suggestion) because "Magic mushroom" was found to be too colloquial. At any rate, A. muscaria is definitely a "magic mushroom", and "magic mushroom" is really the spirit of this article, so a.muscaria should be part of this article. If you're worried about semantics, then I would suggest renaming the page "psychoactive mushroom", though to be honest, I think all this splitting of hairs (on this and other pages) about psychedelic vs. dissociative (like with Ketamine, etc.) is getting a little carried away. "psychedelic" means "mind manifesting", and a. muscaria (and Ketamine) certainly is "mind manifesting", so where's the problem?. In addition, here's a quote taken directly from the psychedelic page:

"At high levels [of psychedelic drugs] this can overwhelm the sense of self and can result in a dissociative state."

So it looks like there's an overlap in the very definition. Erasurehead 14:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that this sort of thing is useful to some degree; the experiences engendered by ketamine and LSD are quite different. There is some overlap, yes, which is why we call them all "hallucinogens"- or rather, called them all hallucinogens until that page was moved to psychedelics, dissociatives and deliriants. With the different terms, its as if we're saying "these are all hallucinogens, but there are several different mechanisms of action/experiential qualities within this class of drugs." Cocaine, caffeine, and methamphetamine are all stimulants, but are still different classes of drugs, with different mechanisms of action and so on . . . But yeah, the comment above was pretty much just splitting hairs; i was just reading through the talk page and that occured to me so i figured i'd share it . . . I have no strong feelings that this page should be limited only to psychedelic mushrooms, it was just kind of a funny thought . . . ;) --Heah? 16:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Psychedelic mushrooms are usually sold on the black market dried, but are sometimes incorporated into chocolate or baked into brownies, cakes or muffins."

This is untrue and I edited it and the article was never changed. Psilocybe is broken down when exposed to heat. They are never baked into foods...

but I've had mushroom fudge....

Fudge requires boiling and the chemical can withstand that amount of heat. That's why people often make mushroom tea. But the temp. it requires to bake shrooms into foods would destroy all of their hallucinogenic properties. So someone should change that..

yeah i have eaten them WITH brownies. not inside them.

Even though psilocybin and psilocin are broken down when heated, it is not uncommon for people to cook psilocybe mushrooms. I have seen them baked into brownies, made into chocolates, baked on pizza, and cooked with a wide variety of foods. Some people are uninformed about the consequences of heating psilocybes. Others are apparently willing to reduce the potency of the mushrooms in order to cover up their taste.

slang

kids around here lately are calling them "marios" and "1-ups" after the popular video game. I've also heard them called "power ups"

Where is that? What age kids? Haiduc 09:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Most likely kids in there teenage years, probably from as young as 13 to as old as 21, probably older. The only terms I've really ever heard used much for mushrooms are shrooms and cubies. --Xer0X 13:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

here (North Carolina) they're usually shrooms, occasionally mushies. not a whole lot of other slang for them.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but "kids around here" are not a valid source for WP. There are several lists of slang terms for mushrooms online, we should use the terms that occur most commonly in them. Nareek 20:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

we just call them shrooms in california

that's not true. i just tripped yesterday on a chocolate. I broke it open and it just looked like chocolate but it definitly had shrooms in it/

Adding on to the slang thing is the use of "get you fines" or "life in jail". Edit to "lifetime imprisonment" and all? I feel a need for proper grammar, not person-to-person slang. 218.186.9.6 12:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

list of names

The list of names has been moved here pending CITATIONS and REFERENCES. Please do not return a name to the article until reference has been provided, and please read Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Liberty caps, magic mushrooms, shrooms have been left in; liberty caps, however, refer to one particular species of mushroom and accordingly should perhaps be removed as well. thank you. --Heah ^talk 19:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Barney balls
• Bloomers (chicago term)
• Boomers
• Brooms
• Caps
• Chocolates
• Copper tops
• Cubes
• Eminems (magic mushrooms)
• Fungus
• Fun guys
• God's flesh
• Goombas
• Gomers
• Gooms
• ham scrotum
• Laughing Jims
• Mexican mushrooms
• Moon children
• Misters
• Mush (common Canadian name)
• Mushies
• Oomies
• Paddo's (common Dutch name)
• Philoshopher's stones (Sclerotium of psilocybin containing mushrooms)
• Pizza Toppings
• Rooms
• Shrooms
• tankerbell
• Zooms
• Zoomers
• Zoomies (also common in Canada)

It's sort of hard to provide citation for a slang term, especially if regional, though I understand the need. However, I've heard and used the term "mushies" before. My citation is The Shroomery's message boards, where the term is not uncommon. Also, it's well known that the Aztecs called their mushrooms "Teonancatl", which means "divine flesh" or "Flesh of the Gods". This latter English translation is often used to refer to them, both in literature and casually in speech. j_freeman 01:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A Google search for "mushrooms boomers" turns up numerous lists that include "boomers" as a slang term for psychedelic mushroom. "Fun guys" does not seem to make any of these lists. Nareek 11:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more proficient to list the most commonly used slang terms? I mean, somebody could simply create some funny sounding name and add it to the list, and deem it 'slang'. IMO, only the more commonly used (regardless of origin) slang terms should be included, not this long list of words that is simply going to bring up disputes about accuracy. --Neur0X 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The list that's in the article (now near the top) is fairly compact. There may be a term or two that could be usefully added, but it so they should be justified by reference to published lists of common slang terms, not on your memory of what you used to call them in college. Nareek 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this article violates Wikipedia policy by linking from a main article to a talk page.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

"It's sort of hard to provide citation for a slang term, especially if regional"

How about using Erowid drug slang page? —Christopher Mann McKay 05:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The berserker myth...

...seems to be popping up on every page even remotely related to Amanita muscaria. It probably deserves mention since it's a very long-lasting urban legend, but that's what it is [5] -- or at least it's a theory not backed by any contemporary source material, but only on Samuel Ödman going "hey, wouldn't it be neat if..." back in 1784. I'm going to edit these sections. Amphis 19:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

i am tripping at the moment on a small dosage of shrooms. i just checked out the article and felt the section of effects really lacked depth. i added 'nausea' because i'm feeling a bit nauseas and often do when on shrooms. it would be great to have an explanasion of why this occurs (poisoning?), and some tips for relief. mint tea is helping some at the moment.

The body thinks (wrongly now) it is poisoned and tries to eliminate any substance that might have caused it. The same way it is fooled into throwing up on a tossing boat, even though the disorientation is not chemically caused. Haiduc 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Title

Although the convention is to use singular nouns for titles, for some reason it seems like this title should be plural. Joey Q. McCartney 12:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Just as easy to make a redirect from there. AP 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops - accidentally marked that minor, my bad. AP 22:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

explanation

Clean Up Discussion

Alright, I guess if we're going to have the cleanup tag on the article we'd better add a discussion section about cleanup. I'm going to start doing some reorganization right now and probably come back here later to make a few notes on what else needs work. AP 22:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You should drop a note to Peter Werner, he's been slowly reorganizing the mushroom pages for some time. There's overlap between this and Psilocybe as well as Amanita muscaria, so it might be good to chat about what will go where . . . --Heah ^talk 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaron - I've been meaning to get back to work on the Psilocybe pages for some time, but frankly, I've been absolutely SWAMPED lately (classes + thesis research will do that). I'm going to try to add some more this weekend. Why don't you work on getting this section together, I'll start plugging away at "Psilocybe" again, and if there's overlap, we'll deal with it as it comes. Peter G Werner 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(copied in from the psilocybe discussion page) I agree with Peter whole-heartedly that the general state of this article is still "mess", though last August I did attempt to overhaul it. The state before that was "total mess"! I rewrote the intro, adding the explicit references to a.muscaria, ergot, the kykeon, and their various principle actives, pointing out quite explicitly and right up front that the effects are chemically and symptomatically unrelated, and added the explicit differentiation in the History section in an attempt make clear that there are different psychedelic funghi, each with different histories and effects. cf. this diff (done before I registered): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Psychedelic_mushroom&diff=20153620&oldid=19885444I

Peter's suggested general strategy of cleaning it up, making it tighter and shorter, with references for detailed reading in psilocybe, amanita muscaria and teonanácatl (and I would suggest ergot and kykeon) in break out style is definitely good. I also agree with his suggestion of making Teonanactl a break-out from psilocybe. Erasurehead 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur aswell. Onyl major problem I'm having thus far is finding a good, concrete discription of fly-agaric effects. I'm read alot of vaugue stuff about them being "less visual" and so on but nothing particularly encylopedic. 130.111.243.209 AP 01:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Try some of the psychedelics encyclopedias, like Psychedelics Encyclopedia by Peter Stafford, From Chocolate to Morphine by Andrew Weil, Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Plants by Christian Rätsch, or online at erowid:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/amanitas/amanitas_effects.shtml

Erasurehead 17:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

any one else notice that one of the effects of fly agraric is "lemon party"? (Unsigned comment by 71.242.13.48 )

Hmm... Yay Vandals! I removed it. AP

I removed the following: "People on "Shrooms" often refer to themselves as Megaman, Super giant, Super dude, or El Jew Banger 5001". That last one in particular looked suspicious (and gets no google hits). Dave6 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing im a "crack dealer vandilism" and the paragraph about grow kits not being available in the US, when they still are and it directley contradicts the next paragraph. Does this page need a vandalism tag? Seems it does anyone know how to put one on here?Bart 14:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

They grow in manure???

One of the common complaints about people who eat mushrooms is that what they are eating grew in cow shit. I see no mention of this in this article... is it true or not.Jdotpitts 16:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The substrate on which a psychedelic mushroom grows depends on the species and other factors. For example, Psilocybe cubensis is a coprophilic fungus (one that prefers in the wild to grow on dung or manured soils), although it is also possible to grow this species on grains such as rye or brown rice in indoor cultivation as well as substrates such as straw. On the other hand, Psilocybe azurescens and other wood-loving mushrooms (e.g. Psilocybe cyanescens and so on...) prefers to grow on hard-wood chips. While others prefer to grow on grass seed such as Psilocybe mexicana. So in conclusion, yes and no...it depends. Wowbobwow12 10:45, 25 April 2006.

Can we put this in the article? There are numerous pop culture references to psych. mushrooms "growing in shit."

Physical Effect: Death????

I cannot find one legitimate instance of death caused as a direct result of consuming psychedelic mushrooms. Can anyone else? From my understanding there is no established Lethal Dose for psilocybin or psilocin. I am certain that deaths have occured because of improper identification, or as a result of carelessness or an accident that occurred under the influence of psilocybin, but i think it is misleading to list death as a physical effect.

jimmy 207.200.162.227 15:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The "death" is vandalism. I have removed it

Death can be a side affect of the consumption of Fly Agaric. Since Fly Agaric is mentioned in this article as one of the mushrooms, it should appropriate to mention all of the possible effects, and not just the probable. So the listing, which I added, was not vandalism. It is even listed as a side effect under Categorization. Unless someone has something else to say I will add it again. This time I will add a side note though that it has only been attributed to fly agaric.RSIferd 15:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Usage

How do you use them? If I find one can I just eat it? Cuzandor 01:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You can, yes. Drying them is also good. Bring a good guide with you and carefuly check you are not eating poison or danger. JayKeaton 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by guide? Cuzandor 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

See trip sitter. j_freeman 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

<math>Insert non-formatted text here</math>==Intellectual effects: Extreme Sexual Ideas?== If this is a real entry (i.e., not vandalism), can someone please explain what "Extreme Sexual ideas" means? Also, some sort of citation would be helpful. Wowbobwow12 21:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Man this things are great, if you can try them, the best are the Mexicans, but not the ones called mexicans , the ones you get in Mexico .

Hm my friend and I have been taking shrooms for a while and we and others we have talked to say that shrooms typically put the physical act of sex completely out of your mind, though not the fantasies. So the physical act was unheard of while under the influence of them, I've also tried before and I was quite impotent, not so much the fact that I was aroused but couldn't get erect, but just that my mind was more concerned with other things at the moment. Anyone else? Kniesten 22:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah. on ecstasy i can be totally in love with a girl. but amphetamine make it impossible to get an erection.

haha, the best way in my opinion is to make tea. boil enough water for 1 cup of tea per person, while your doing that saute the musrooms delicately. after your boil the water add w/e form of tea you want and drop the shrooms in stir it up quick and cover the cup with celefane, wait about 10-15 min and eat the shrooms when u drink the tea, they wont taste like much other than tea.....however someone once mentioned to me that the reaction between the chemicals in the mushrooms and the water might reduce the reaction in your body, but i still have great trips

Long-term side effects

I was wondering about the long-term side effects of mushrooms, if there are any, but the article doesn't make any mention either way. Maybe this should be added? Cheers! The Disco King 16:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are not any.. Its a natural toxin, like in food poisoning.. it makes you feel sick but like it was pointed out in the article, the amount of toxin isnt even more than what is in an aspirin. and as far as i know, people dont have problems with the amount of toxin in aspirin, and people dont suffer from any side effects of food poisoning later on after they are poisoned... sooo I think it would be safe to assume that there are no long term effects. - Amputechture

Decreased control of bowels?

I noticed a couple of typos in the Physical Effects list, and one of the items says "Decreased controll of bowl". I assume whoever meant to say "Decreased control of bowels" instead, so I'm editing it. I've never experienced that particular side effect while under the influence of psilocybin, but whatever I'll take the article's word for it.--SeanQuixote | talk | my contribs 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

that sounds like vandalism

Bowel control was a major issue from me i kept thinking i had peed myself and i had to clench for ages to make sure i didn't...very very discomforting but i have a very low succeptablity and the others i was with did not experience this.

Civility

I put this on the anonymous editor's Talk page, but I wanted to say this for the editor reverted as well: It's one thing to edit people's work, it's another thing to insult them when you do so. My apologies for WP's failure to live up to its ideals of civility. Nareek 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Identification

The warning was kind of unencyclopedic, but the whole section is really kind of useless. We probably can't teach people how to distinguish between hallucinogenic and poisonous mushrooms, and really shouldn't even try--so what would "identification" be for? Maybe we should move any useful information elsewhere and delete the rest. Nareek 20:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I think this is one of the hardest articles to respect WP:NOR on. Do we have any acceptable sources on the comparative dosage of fresh and dried shrooms? One editor says 10x, the other says less. Any ideas? yandman 07:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Psychedelic or psychadelic?

I've always seem the second term. Which one is right? FilipeS 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's psychedelic. Psychadelic is a misspelling. Angular 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

An interesting note however: Timothy Leary, who was largely responsible for the popularization of the term "psychedelic", was a well known proponent of their use, as was Aldous Huxley. The word psychedelic should actually be spelled psychodelic, in accordance with proper Greek, as Huxley had pointed out to Osmund upon the term's conception. However, Leary thought that psychedelic sounded better and deliberately disregarded the proper spelling and pronunciation. Wowbobwow12 20:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible addition of new section

Does anyone else believe that it would be helpful to add a new section, like LSD and Cannabis, detailing exactly what receptors mushrooms bind to and affect, how they do so, et cetera? This information could be taken from the psilocybin or psilocin articles, and be subjected to typical cleanup and reorganization. Any feedback would be appreciated. Angular 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

New Section Required

I know very little about mushrooms, but a quick read of this page reveals a glaring omission: There is no information about the origin of the phycotics in the mushrooms, i.e. what role do they play in the mushrooms chemistry, biology, what advantages they provide etc. Can someone with more knowledge on the subject please add a section for this purpose. (Gonzonator 12:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC))

         That information should stay on the psilocybe and psilocybin pages, as it is the effect of 
         the chemical in the mushrooms, and not the actual mushrooms. Maybe a link to that page, from 
         somewhere in the effects section?

Overdose?

Is it possible to OD on phychedellic mushrooms?

---Duhon

It is not possible to overdose on psychedelic mushrooms. No known cases have been reported in the medical literature. Reference: Cuomo MJ, Dyment PG, and Gammino VM. Increasing Use of "Ecstasy" (MDMA) and Other Hallucinogens on a College Campus. College Health 42: 271-274 (1994).

Psychological effects

Repressed and otherwise subconscious memories can be recalled.

Within the field of psychology there is significant debate to the existence of both repressed and subconscious memories, with empirical data present supporting both sides of each argument. Given this, I don't believe that this statement belongs in an encyclopedia until this dispute is settled. Therefore, I will be removing this phrase from the page.

Charmston 08:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)charmston

Should the article tell people how to take drugs?

Peter G Werner 03:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know free information is wonderful, just like free love and free beer, but should this article practically give advice for how to consume illegal drugs? The "Dangers" section includes nothing but tips for how to avoid problems while taking the drugs. I also see that this talk page includes a few people asking where they can find such mushrooms. While I'll never argue against making this information available, does it really belong on Wikipedia? --Asriel 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hell, after reading through the article again, the whole thing seems like a flowing recommendation upon the subject matter. All of the effects are presented as good things, the only indication of harm I can find is "A sense of paranoia may be present,[3] and if provoked enough, could culminate into a bad trip. However, the possibility of a bad trip happening can be reduced by a comfortable set and setting." I'd say the neutrality of this article is in question, as it seems to me more like a user's manual than an encyclopedia article. --Asriel 23:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe these particular drugs are okay... Of course, we need more scientific studies, but I really do think this particular drug is rather harmless (even though the effect is very strong) compared to others.
About telling people how to use them: I think it's important that there is good information on the subject. People will take them anyway, so maybe it's not such a bad idea to tell them how to avoid a bad trip, or (mostly with other drugs) how to be careful so as not be get addicted, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JVersteeg (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

The article does not tell readers how to take take mushrooms it informs the reader of how mushrooms are taken by users you may as well criticise the article on opium for mentioning pipes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.55.85 (talk • contribs) 10:47, March 16, 2007

"how to be careful so as not be get addicted, etc" (qoute from JVersteeg) - To my knowledge, not many people become addicted to psilocybin mushrooms because shrooms are not physically addictive. Of course someone may develop a psychological addiction to them, as someone may develop a psychological addiction to food, coffee, relationships, sex or other things. Therefore, I don't believe you should put anything about how to be careful to not get addicted to shrooms, because it isn't relevant and it isn’t on other Wikipedia articles of things people become addicted to.

—Christopher Mann McKay 18:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, caffeine develops a physical addiction, not psychological. Captanpluto123 22:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that; but people can still develop a psychological addiction to it. For example, people who used to be cocaine or meth addicts often become psychologically addicted to caffeine because it is an upper; they don't become addicted just because their bodies build a tolerance to the drug. I was just trying to make a point that we should not tell people "how to be careful so as not be get addicted, etc", especially when shrooms are not physically addictive. —User:Christopher Mann McKay 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelic Mushroom Risks

A section about the risks could be interesting.

see this link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.154.242.68 (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe its a troll?

75.20.203.169 06:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That link isn't reliable; it is someone asking a question. If you want a section about health risks, see a reliable web site, such as Government of Canada or Erowid; however, the best route would be to search for reliable studies that have proven the adverse effects of shrooms, instead of using web sites that list the effects, but don’t list any references or original sources.

—Christopher Mann McKay 18:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Due to their availability and popularity, any lasting negative effects would be put through the propaganda machine and would come out at a very high volume, easily found with google. No government is likely to want to fund a study about the health effects of psilocybin mushrooms because of the probability that it would turn out like the peyote experiment which found no evidence of long term health consequences from heavy mescaline use.

Split proposal

I'm proposing to create a new article called Psilocybin mushrooms which would incorporate the psilocybin-mushroom info from this article, as well as like info from Psilocybe. The Amanita muscaria-related info from this article would be incorporated into the existing article Amanita muscaria. This page would remain as essentially a disambiguation page.

My justification for this is that 1) Psilocybin mushrooms and Amanita muscaria really are two different topics; the psychoactive effects, history, and present legal status for each is quite different; 2) Even though Psilocybin is the active ingredient in psilocybin mushrooms, there are a lot of aspects (legal, historical, etc) that are unique to the mushroom that aren't really appropriate to an article on a pure drug compound, hence the justification for having a separate "Psilocybin mushroom" article; 3) Psilocybin mushrooms fall into multiple genera, Psilocybe, Panaeolus, and few representatives in other genera; the articles "Psilocybe" and "Panaeolus" are better focused on taxonomy and description, etc, with short sections on historical and psychoactive aspects that mainly redirect to other articles.

Please let me know what you think of the proposal. Peter G Werner 05:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Great idea. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 05:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: actually, since most of this article (Psychedelic mushroom) is about psilocybin mushrooms, the way I would go about it is to simply move this page to "Psilocybin mushroom" (hence keeping the edit history) and then cut the Amanita muscaria info out and put it in "Amanita muscaria". Then, I'd recreate a new "Psychedelic mushroom" disambiguation page. Peter G Werner 05:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree - they are two different quite disparate topics artificially amalgamated on this page. This page can be kept as a very short article with directs off to the constituent species. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Amanitas and Psilocybe (etc.) are psychedelic because of compounds that completely different pharmacologically (GABA agonists vs. Serotonin agonists) and using the term "psychedelic" to refer to only one pathway is wrong. Psychedelic Mushroom should be a disambig between Psilocybe (etc.) and Amanitas, and psilocybin and muscimol should be referenced in their corresponding mushrooms' articles. Jolb 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the rule of thumb on proposals like this is let the poll run for two weeks. So I'll let it run until March 27, and if there's no significant objections, I'll go ahead with the reorganization. Peter G Werner 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Amanita muscaria is very different from the true psilocybin mushrooms. In fact Muscaria isn't even a psychedelic drug (it's a dissociative drug). So it doesn't make much sense to keep both substances in the same article. How I see it, the new "Psilocybin Mushrooms" (fungi source) article should be as detailed as the Cannabis (drug) (plant source) article, while the original Psilocybin (compound) article should be as detailed as the THC (compound) article (just showing a parallel example style here for the articles). Zachorious 03:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done the basic reorganization of the articles now. I still need to get into the Psilocybe article and move the appropriate material to Psilocybin mushrooms while still keeping short sections on history, legal status, etc. I hope to get to this in the next day or so. Peter G Werner 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized at least five times in the last 48 hours. I think it might be time to have this page semi-protected. I've put in a request to have this page semi-protected (meaning no edits by anonymous users or those with accounts less than four days old). Let me know if there are any objections to this. Peter G Werner 03:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mushrooms as cause of psychosis

In the sensory section, Dr. van der Heijden is quoted. But if you quote someone, then please dig up the persons words, instead of quoting a newspaper. The publication discussed by the newspaper was put out of context. The study group was a full 2 people. One recovered immediately after receiving a injection with medication. The other recovered within 24 hours without treatment. If this study says anything at all about harmfulness, then it gives an indication that people recover quickly from a psychotic reaction. In short: the quote is unfounded and does not belong in this article. --Malkuth1 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no direct quotes from Dr. Van Der Heijden in the passage you are referring to.

I can't find any other sources onlinie. I do know it was orginally posted in the World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 2004; ch. 5 pg. 46-50; however, I do not have access to that Journal and it is not online. A newspaper article is the best source online source I am aware of. The Independent is a reliable source and I do not see a problem using it because there is a lack of other information avivable. How did you find out more information on the study? If it really did only involve two people and was taken out of context, then it should be removed, but I would like to see some proof it was only two persons and was taken out of context. Please provide a source for your claims and then the passage should be removed. Thanks. —Christopher Mann McKay 17:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Clause?

Why is the clause "One should be extremely cautious of any mushrooms which have unusual growths or mold, as well as any mushrooms which may have been harvested from the same grow as mushrooms with these growths." in this?

Shouldn't you not take these mushrooms in the first place? The Ronin 23:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• You cannot assume all readers of the article are subject to the same juristriction as you are. 203.96.116.186 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

Under Legal status: "The classification of psilocybin mushrooms as a schedule 1 drug has come under criticism because shrooms are considered soft drugs with a low potential for abuse."

I don't see this statement as appropriate. It's weasely, doesn't cite it sources, and has the slang use of shrooms. I don't have edit permission, so if a regular editor agrees with me could they change. (Also delete this talk section). Cheers. 203.96.116.186 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that they are weasel words, but I also agree with the original editor that they are soft drugs with low abuse potential. Some rewording is in order. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dosage information needs to be clarified

71.138.240.182 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Under dosage, there is a part that states "When eaten dry, 1 to 1.5 grams of mushrooms provide a small "trip" that can last up to 3 hours. The effects then are relatively mild, depending on the tolerance of the subject. With 3 to 3.5 grams one experiences a strong and solid trip which can last more than 5 hours."

I found this information to be completely false. 1.5 grams of dried mushrooms is definitely capable of giving a trip longer than three hours, and can be very intense. Even if the section does say, "...depending on the tolerance of the subject.", I believe this section needs to be clarified. Taking three or more grams for a first experience, for example, is usually warned against.

Dosage potency depends on many factors including the potency of the particular strain in question, the drying method used, how old the mushrooms are, the storage conditions, the body weight of the subject, and also the subject's sensitivity/tolerance. For the average adult of aproximately 175lbs of average sensitivity, consuming psilocybe cubensis mushrooms of average potency, 1-1.5g will be a mild dosage, and 3g will be a moderate dosage. Also please note that using mushrooms in combination with cannabis will also produce an increased effect. This THC potentiation cannot be overstated, and has been the root cause of many a "bad trip" with mushrooms as well as other psychedelics. --Thoric 02:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

can you tripp twice in one day?

Factual error re: Maya/South America

In the history section, it says: "Mushroom stones and motifs have been found in Mayan temple ruins in South America, though there is considerable controversy as to whether these objects indicate the use of hallucinogenic mushrooms or whether they had some other significance with the mushroom shape being simply a coincidence." But I know this can't be right because the Maya never lived in South America.

The source is cited as Stamets, Paul [1996]. Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World, 11. ISBN 0898158397. Does someone have access to this book to fact check this and correct the statement? If not, is there some way to remove or revise this statement so that it is no longer factually incorrect? Yawar.fiesta 22:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the statement about the Maya being in South America got into the article at one point – that's certainly not the way it was written. Chalk that up to any damn fool with basic misinformation about geography being able to edit Wikipedia, I guess. I can confirm, however, that the idea that "mushroom stones" actually represent hallucinogenic mushrooms is a controversial one, though I'll have to dig up the cites on that. Wasson and Stametes, of course, are notable proponents of that view, but there are archaeologists who disagree. For what its worth, I count myself as a skeptic as well – just what psilocybian species do the mushroom stones actually look like? Probably a stereotypical representation of Psilocybe cubensis. However, that species wasn't present in the New World until the introduction of cattle. Mushroom stones, however, bear no resemblance to Psilocybe mexicana and other psilocybian species native to Mesoamerica. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Omitted section - types of psilocybin mushrooms

A section is needed -- perhaps as simple as a "wikitable sortable" table - listing types, sample pics, and selected information, on the major different subspecies. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

split?

It's really hard to get past that LONG list of species. Anyone agree/disagree that there should be a new page for the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatherfire (talk • contribs) 04:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

thus proving that shrooms will mess u up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.1.206.117 (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

"thus proving that shrooms will mess u up" What's that supposed to mean?(Aweedwhacker (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

Merge with Psilocybin?

Merge or not, the "Effects" section does not belong here. It most properly belongs in the Psilocin page, rightly. --1000Faces (talk) 06:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

psilocybin mushrooms

I went through the artical and found noting of what makes you have a hallucination. I was talking with a friend earlyer to day and he told me that the reasion that you do hallucinate is because blood runs down your brain stem and I just want to know if this is true or not because I would rather not be taking a natural product that does bodly harm.71.222.165.32 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Brandi S.

That is entirely untrue 24.65.42.159 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely false. Likely started as a rumor to discourage mushroom consumption. What actually makes you trip from a scientific perspective is this. The chemical psilocybin plugs into the serotonin receptors in your brain because one side of the psilocybin molocule is identical in composition to serotonin. The side that is different processes electrical currents in a different way causing the neural firing zones to behave differently, leading to a chain reaction. This chain reaction of unusual electrical impulses causes the electrical based elements of your consciousness to behave differently...

From a more or less esoteric perspective, the exposed top third of the serotonin (brain) chemical is like a radio receiving the station that we all listen to (normal human, and or mammal conciousness), and the exposed top third of the psilocybin (mushroom) chemical is like a radio receiving a strange station that some people listen to sometimes (abstract conciousness), but anyone can listen to if they have psilocybin inside their brains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.52.60 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Psilocybin mushrooms outside the Western Hemisphere

Is there any history for the use of psilocybin mushrooms outside mesoamerica and in the Eastern Hemisphere before the Spanish came to the new world? There are many theories about the drink called Soma, the Eleusian Mysteries, in the dung of cattle of prey of pre-historic humans in Africa, ect. but I haven't read an article that talks about this history.....were mushrooms just discovered in the new world or did they exist in the old world and where just unknown by the time the Spanish found them in the new world? Just like cannabis was unknown in the new world until it was brought from the old world. Zachorious (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

See Amanita muscaria. That mushroom of course being very different and having extremely different effects. Beach drifter (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Europe has a long tradition. Possibly the Vikings as well. There was an ancient Bogman (the name slips from me) found it Jutland that had ergot in his stomach. It is thought that it was an intentional dose, and not accidental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.169.218 (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly the Vikings? We Norwegians know perfectly well that the Vikings used to eat fleinsopp ( psilocybe semilanceata ).--Zanthius (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Psilocybin in relation to human evolution

I wish this article could contain some information about Terrence Mckenna's theory about psilocybin in relation to human evolution.

Actually, it would be great if somebody could make a separate page about "Psilocybin and human evolution".

There is some info here though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_evolution --Zanthius (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

'McKenna did not attempt to defend his hypotheses through rigorous scientific evidence; he consciously self-identified as a type of shaman, or ethnobotanist. McKenna and his followers view his theories as speculation that is at a minimum scientifically feasible and arguably gifted by special knowledge due to psychedelic plants.' Do you really think that information is related to the term of 'encyclopedia'? -- 82.209.225.33 (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I know that the evolution of the ability to think abstractly must have been one of the prime causes which made monkeys evolve into human beings. The invention of numbers, the formation of religious doctrines, the formation of complex social structures - all such things requires the ability to think abstractly. There seems to be a need for some kind of a shock which pushed our species out of the typical animalistic behavior pattern. Why would a species choose to break out of its typical animalistic behavior pattern, unless there was some kind of a shock applied to the species?

I wouldn't spontaneously invent numbers, form religious doctrines, and complex social structures, if I was a Gorilla. However, if there was some kind of a shock pushing my mind out of my typical animalistic behavior pattern, I might start to do such things. From my vast experience with magic mushrooms some years ago, I think it is safe to say that it provides some kind of a shock which stimulates your mind to think more abstractly. Yes, if I was a Gorilla, I would probably also start to think more abstractly, if I started to eat magic mushrooms.--Zanthius (talk) 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The ability to think abstractly can't have been one of the causes of monkeys evolving into humans, because they didn't. The notion that ideas like numbers, religious doctrines and complex social structures were "spontaneously" invented is erroneous - the number zero, for example, didn't occur until after the birth of Christ and even then not in the complete form we use it in now. Complex social structures themselves are exhibited by an enormous (if not all) range of animal species and are not peculiarly human. These social structures (and in my opinion consciousness and abstract thought itself) are explained by Emergence as a natural although generally inexplicable growth due to interaction between agencies. Besides all that, imagine you're a gorilla and you eat a mushroom - all of a sudden you're experiencing things at a confusing level of intensity, you feel weak, maybe nauseaous, and the resulting abnormal behaviour immediately alienates you from the troop causing them to cast you out and reducing your chances of reproducing at all. All in all, I definitely would not place magic mushrooms on the level of, say, The Monolith. --210.55.180.44 (talk) 03:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Most historians actually agree upon the notion that the first humans should be defined according to when our genetic strain developed a "symbolic language", and gained the ability of "collective learning" - which made our pool of collective knowledge increase from one generation to the next. Who are you to say that people only gets nauseous and feel weak, when they eat magic mushrooms? Most people don't get a bad trip when they eat magic mushrooms, they get enlightening spiritual experiences - see the Marsh Chapel Experiment for details. Personally, I used to feel very strong when I ate magic mushrooms.

I am completely convinced that psilocybin stimulated my ability to think abstractly when I used it, and when the ability to think abstractly is stimulated, it increases the probability for developing a symbolic language. The Olmec civilization in middle America might have invented the number zero long before the birth of Christ by the way, and they probably used a lot of magic mushrooms in their religious ceremonies.

I also feel much more related to the deep spiritual experiences of magic mushrooms, than to those stupid chimpanzees. I really hope that I originate just as much from divine mushrooms, as from those stupid chimpanzees! At least that would give me *some* divine origin.--Zanthius (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a few people who can think very abstractly without the use of MM. Most people with very high intelligence think on a different level than people with average intelligence. There is also an ability called 'Low latent inhibition' which allows the person to connect varying things that a normal person simply would not be able to think of. People of high intelligence, who have LLI can think on an extrodinary level. It is likely men like Bobby Fischer or possibly Einstein had this ability. Even still, some autistics and Aspergers or true ADHD (not the majority of people who think because they get tired of studying they have ADHD) coupled with high intelligence, can breed unbelievable mental abilities. The gap of human intelligence is incredible to the point a genius would have a hard time dealing with people of lesser intelligence from the sheer incompetence an average person would have to what they are grasping. That is why a lot of the most brilliant men were called crazy in there day. Not because the one person was stupid, but because the masses were not able to understand. Therefore, those people would have spearheaded the movements, just like they have in history. In the time since writing, human intelligence hasn't change a single degree. Sargon the Great would have made a good president now, just like he was a good king 6000 years ago. Moses would have been a great political leader now, just as he was then. I simply don't believe people tripping on psilocybin 'opened' there eyes to the things that allowed us to evolve.

As an anthropologist it seems very unlikely that the evolution of man was based almost solely, or even partly on the use of a hallucinogenic substance. It is an appealing theory to a mushroom lover. I am a coffee lover but I don't buy the theory that Coffee is what caused the industrial revolution. As for being in proximity to the cattle for the mushrooms, let's think at a most practical level, In the daily fight for existence, especially in Africa, cattle would have been worth milk, meat, monetary value, and even there blood to drink for minerals. There is so much more basic needs.

Also, It simply isn't possible to claim the invention--discovery--of zero to the use of mushrooms. Could it be true? Of course it could be true. But I have to say thousands of years of astronomy and a mathematecian class in Mesoamerica probably led to it's discovery, not a priest sitting on a hill watching the sunset on mushrooms.

And as for the decent from monkey's, as a skeptic, I think we are wasting years of study basing everything on that. We need to look from other angles. I am not saying it did not happen that way but humans are so different than anything else. Why are we the only ones? Out of millions and millions of animals, even plants and everything in between, why is it only us? Nothing else could destroy the world, no other creature has as much power, and none even come within a close range. I just cannot believe that humans are the descendents of a stupid creature in Africa. It just is too humble a beginning for the greatness humanity has achieved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.169.218 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The comparison of the vaguely stimulating and highly addictive effects of caffeine, to the highly psychoactive and non-addictive effects of psilocybin, isn't much good. A caffeine addiction isn't much good for your health by the way, but as nutritionists increasingly are saying - everything you eat, and even the air you breath, is affecting your health, and possibly also the long term evolution of a species. Humans are said the have evolved a protein for milk digestion after people started to drink milk in the agrarian period, while Japanese people are said to have above average intelligence, due to the high concentration of omega 3 fatty acids in their raw fish diets.

I know perfectly well that the intellectual gap between super geniuses and ordinary people is huge, but thinking abstractly isn't so much a matter of either/or, it is rather a gradient of different levels of abstraction. Sure, Einstein could think much more abstractly than ordinary people in his normal state of consciousness, but that doesn't mean that Einstein couldn't have increased his level of abstraction even more by eating magic mushrooms, just like a good seed can increase its growth even more by the use of fertilizers. I also think it is probable that super geniuses have more psilocybin in their ancestral blood, than ordinary people.

One of the things I loved to do when I used to eat magic mushrooms, was to go out and look at the stars, or the aurora borealis. So I wouldn't find it strange if magic mushrooms stimulated an interest for the evolution of astronomy in Mesoamerica. Also, remember that in ancient times, astronomy was highly related to religion, quite unlike in our days. The Maya calendar wasn't just for keeping track of time, it also had major religious significances.

More than 98% of human DNA is similar to chimpanzee DNA, so of course we are related to them in some ways, but I prefer to think that the good qualities in human beings, like the ability to think abstractly and the ability to have spiritual values, is derived from the use of magic mushrooms in archaic times.

Why do you think the people eating magic mushrooms usually are much more attracted to highly abstract fractal art, than what ordinary people usually are? Isn't this clearly indicating that magic mushrooms leads to abstract thinking, and to a fascination of the abstract?--Zanthius (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have made a webpage about this at: http://www.archania.org/members/mushrooms_and_evolution.php --Zanthius (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dosage

The indications for dosage seem to be repeated, and to be contradictory in terms of strength, does anyone know an expert who could clear this section up? 24.65.42.159 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Are there any sexual side effects noted? that would be interesting

Well, with weaker dosages, the thought of intercourse is surely appealing, but when it comes to my personal experience, well, lets say "the mind is willing but the flesh is limb". There are other states of mind much more suitable for that (again, imo/ime ;) syneworks (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Still legal in Holland

Whoever added that Holland has outlawed psilocybin mushrooms needs a reality check, they've only decided to outlaw them, as for actually passing the law, they haven't gotten that far yet. Psilocybin-containing fungi are STILL legal in Holland. 87.56.198.93 (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why make psilocybin-containing fungi illegal? So that people cannot get spiritual and religious experiences from them? Who is the government to deny people substances leading to such profound spiritual and religious experiences? I think the governments are severely mistaken in their agendas against spirituality. --Zanthius (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the right place to discuss the reasoning behind legislation, but I agree that it should not be a crime to consume this. Bundee (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

psilocybin mushrooms have just been outlawed in the Netherlands dec/1/2008 it is illegal to buy, sell or consume all psilocybin containing mushrooms.

This is terrible news. It means that our global community has deteriorated farther into materialism. Materialism without spirituality makes us into dead machines, where there is no room for consciousness. Eating psilocybin mushrooms is one of the most easy and efficient ways to gain spiritual and religious experiences, something we lack in our modern society. We cannot continue to let these materialists dig our spiritual grave. We must fight against the purely materialistic mindset with spiritual propaganda for magic mushrooms on the Internet. The battle for magic mushrooms is a holy war.--Zanthius (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

According to two "associates" of mine, who are involved in the sale or distribution of "magic mushrooms" and spores in the netherlands, who I believe to be very reliable, only the "fruiting bodies", the above-ground visible mushrooms, were outlawed on dec. 1st, but neither any spores, mycelia, or the sclerotia formed by Psilocybe tampanensis and Psilocybe mexicana. Furthermore, I was informed that a number of majors from various dutch cities decided not to enforce the ban, though. It seems the ban, at least in part, resulted from pressure from foreign governments after tourists of those nations were hospitalized or commited suicide after consuming mushrooms. Unfortunately, I don't speak dutch, so I couldn't verify these claims through dutch sources. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

On a different matter, I think the article should contain some more information on the ritualistic/"neo-shamanic"/healing practices that are rather secretly evolving around these mushrooms in western society. Without any doubt, the majority of users take them recreationally, not to say they treat them as "just another way to get high", but there is also quite a number of people who use them in a serious, spiritual context, much like the way they are used in south american cultures, I think that's a difference worth noting. Personally, I don't understand how they can be taken "recreationally", in my experience, careful self-preparation is absolutely necessary to be able to use their full potential. I've made the mistake of taking them somewhat lightheartedly a few times in the past, and they made me pay for my "indulgence" (or to put it this way, they've beaten the sh*t out of me in a spiritual, mental, and as I have to admit, well deserved way). It just saddens me to see these "sacred little helpers" exploited by our hedonistic culture. I think readers of this article should be made aware of both sides of the coin. (please excuse my bumpy english, I'm not a native speaker. I'm also rather new to wikipedia, any advice is appreciated :) Walk in beauty. syneworks (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the mushrooms, they don't care if people are using them in a hedonistic way, because they know that individuals that are not using them seriously, will eventually convert to more serious usage, if they use them enough. Psilocybin makes you connect to your surroundings on a deeper level, so you are well advised to use them in surroundings where you feel comfortable, and people will learn quickly if they don't. Of course, it is a little unfortunate with the accidents that has happened due to wrong usage of magic mushrooms, but compare these deaths to the amount of people that are dying from nicotine cigarettes and alcoholic beverages, and you will get things into perspective.--Zanthius (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite needed?

This line appears to be biased against Leary: "After Leary and Alpert were dismissed by Harvard in 1963, they turned their attention toward evangelizing the psychedelic experience to the nascent hippie counterculture."

Leary did not advocate the hedonistic use of psychedelic substances. He believed they were best utilized as a learning tool, as documented in the wikipedia page on him. To say that after his serious research was dismissed he simply started to preach the drug to hippies is totally false.Winkie (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Buddha overdosed on mushroom?

There is a theory that Buddha OD'd on "Magic Mushrooms". Is that noteworthy enough to mention in this article? 81.229.81.96 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, for several reasons. 1) Do you have a reference for this or did you just "hear it somewhere"? Have a look at WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY for why the latter is not OK to add to Wikipedia. 2) You can't physically overdose on psilocybin mushrooms. 3) Assertions that Gautama Buddha used psilocybin mushrooms are speculative at best. Wasson believed this, and perhaps a balanced presentation of his views on this are worthwhile. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rename article to "Psilocybe Mushrooms"

I believe muchrooms have two or three psychoactive chemicals in them, not just psilocybin. I bhelieve psilocin and baeocystin -- at least one of those is psychoactive. So having the article titled "Psilocybin mushrooms" isn't completely accurate if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.0.202 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The article Psilocybe already exists, and covers the entire psilocybe genus. The introduction to that article states that they are best known for the psychodelic members of the genus, but that most species do not contain psychoactive compounds. The Psilocybin mushrooms page mentions both the compounds psilocybin and psilocin, and specifically discusses the hallucinogenic species of the psilocybe family. I believe the distinction between the two articles is important and valid. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The map

I'm copying here a remark I made a couple weeks ago regarding the map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Psilocybe-cubensis-range-map.png

"Plants and fungi can't possibly be bounded to political divisions :) According to this, the mushrooms can be found in one half of New Guinea, and not the other? And in most of South America, but not Paraguay?"

Also, I found a similar reliable map (for Psilocybin mushrooms in general, not just cubensis) page 64 of Psilocybin Mushrooms of the World by Paul Stamets, which is referenced here several times by the way (see Notes and References). It doesn't look like this at all...

L'œuf (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Least harmful drug according to British experts.

British experts in drug harm put psilocybin mushrooms as the least harmful drugs on their list ( http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/drugs_cause_most_harm ). Perhaps some information about this could be included in the article?158.39.241.139 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe put this at the part where it says that it's a soft drug if it can be said to support that claim. Otherwise the bit about the ban on the sale of the mushroom coming under criticism should be removed as biased. Superpronker (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

New Hopkins study

Not MEDRS, but I just read this in the San Francisco gate. I haven't seen the study itself but it might be worth a look over to see if there's anything we can include. If not, I'm sure with the influx of recent psilocybin trails we'll see a decent metastudy in the next couple years. Anyway, I will try to find the study when I have some free time and I'll bring it up here. N^oformation ^Talk 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Studies suggest Psilocybin Mushroom may help depression

Reported in Guardian links below http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/23/magic-mushrooms-psilocybin-depression-drug?

http://www.nature.com/news/psychedelic-chemical-subdues-brain-activity-1.9878

CMP=twt_fd — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDempseyUK (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"Stoned Ape Theory"

In the "Early History" section the passage about this Stoned Ape Theory seems extremely poorly sourced and written. The sources currently labelled 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 lead to either youtube videos or extremely nonacademic sites dedicated to drug discussion. The article also makes Terrence McKenna and Graham Hancock sound like respected academics when both come across as pseudoscientists to me. Unless someone can find reasonable sources for the information here I feel the passage should be deleted.

Medical physicist (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The 'stoned ape' section in the McKenna article is very well sourced, so perhaps an interested editor could draw from there. Screamliner (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

McKenna's beliefs on this matter have no acceptance in the scientific community, and do not belong on this article. 74.193.67.92 (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Legality

This section is lacking the rest of the world. What about Japan's quasi-legal perspective? Danwiggy (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References