They finally found it. The Blue Angel mushroom really does exist…
Peak show
Can’t wait for it to become known so governments all across the world can throw you in a prison cell and ruin your life for it like the other known hallucinogens.
Junkies being angry about saving their life.
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, why comment at all? Get that shit out of here and go back to Reddit with it.
If you don’t like my opinion why should I like yours? Let me do my thing to break through the opinion bubbles you are living in.
Your flame war game is fucking weak… peasant
It’s not an opinion, your assertion that “junkie” refers to anyone who has used drugs is just objectively WRONG.
And thinking you are somehow educating the rest of us is STUPID, since you were flatly wrong from your initial assertion.
You are too dumb to understand any of this, but the rest of us do.
And we’re laughing AT you, MAGA.
Wow you got heated. Calm down man. You don’t know me. I’m not even in the US. But I’m starting to understand why you hate this opinion that much. It’s because your enemy tribe used to say this probably. Luckily, I don’t get US propaganda so I don’t need that much drugs.
“Bacon is tasty” and “everyone different from me should be executed” are technically both just opinions so that means they’re the same, right?
it’s not an opinion. cannabis doesn’t kill. it’s outlawed to target the black and leftist population mostly.
Why do you think cannabis was outlawed to target the black and the leftists? I’m missing a point in your reasoning
because cannabis was mostly consumed by groups that the political mainstream didn’t like. for example, it is still the case today that cannabis is mostly being consumed by people who lean left politically.
e.g. https://news.gallup.com/poll/405086/marijuana-views-linked-ideology-religiosity-age.aspx
- 68% of U.S. adults favor legalizing marijuana, tied for record high
- Liberal, younger, less religious are most supportive
- Only 32% of conservatives aged 65 and older are in favor
also, around 1969 when a lot of people took drugs (LSD etc) on hippie festivals (woodstock), these people overwhelmingly had anti-war, anti-capitalist, hippie views etc. so there’s a clear link between drug usage and political views.
Today cannabis is mostly consumed by people who voted left, thus 90 years ago it was made illegal to damage people who vote left; the prohibition was passed by the left.
Sorry, I’ll try to follow you, but this makes no sense. The fact that people vote left smoke marijuana is not influential in explaining why it was banned. There may be a relationship there but just this fact proves nothing.
I might as well say that marijuana was banned to harm the farmers population since farmers are the ones who mostly grow marijuana.
because cannabis was mostly consumed by groups that the political mainstream didn’t like
Could be, but I don’t think marijuana back then was so widespread as it became with the Hippie movement.
Sorry to hear that. There isn’t a singular point, because it’s a complex subject. Wish I had the time or patience to explain, but I would implore you to just try learning more. You won’t have your hand held through everything, but you now have an idea of where to start, if you truly give a shit. Best of luck friend, I’m excited for you
I’m afraid you misunderstand. I really don’t see why you’d sustain such an idea. I’m not saying this is necessarily false, but to say something like that it helps to explain why you feel that way. You are treating this as common knowledge, this makes me think you do not thoroughly know about this subject and are just expressing an unsubstantiated opinion as a fact.
I guess you’re talking about the US. Marijuana was made illegal in 1937. Roosevelt was president, I doubt the democrats prohibited it to harm the leftists.
Regarding the black, I really don’t see the connection.
deleted by creator
“Junkie” is pretty much understood to be a narcotic/heroin user, not hallucinogenics. Regardless, decades of prohibition policies have proven your opinion isn’t a valid both-sides argument, but patently incorrect. This is supported by many professional opinions from medical doctors, psychologists, sociologists, economists, etc. looking at the impacts of strict criminal penalties for drug use to both the individual and their communities.
Okey dokey
Spoken like a 22 year old who grew up in a conservative household and never needed to think beyond what others have told them.
I’m sorry but this is such a dumb and naive take. This person could be any age and grew up in a conservative household and never needed to think beyond what others have told them.
Touché.
Is that how you justify telling other people how they’re allowed to spend their time? You just have to presume that their life is (1) in danger, (2) at their own fault, (3) and it’s your responsibility to do something, (4) even against their own will—and you can just apply this rubric of thought to any particular discontent with their character? How convenient. So, if you don’t like gay people, should you also teach thy neighbor about god? Maybe force them to read the bible in a conversion camp? It sure would be better if everyone thought just like us, huh?
I think you’re talking about adults, otherwise it wouldn’t be a question that yes, you should save them from themselves.
Talking about adults, haven’t you seen videos about countries where they allowed every drugs? Have you ever bought a product and disappointed in it despite the PR and research you put in? Have you ever bought a product without research? No, people can’t decide responsibly, they learn from their fault when it’s too late. The market needs to be green.
There is not a single country where every drug is “allowed,” wtf are you talking about?
This is such “I’m 17 and grew up in a conservative household” energy. How did you even end up on Lemmy?
If you’re interested I’m 29 and born in a hungarian village where nobody was religious. I ended up on lemmy because I am a developer and free software supporter. I want a nice place to live in, and psychedelics does not fit into that picture.
Maybe just accept that not everybody has the same opinion. Let me express that I think psychedelics should be banned.
I have to correct myself, it’s not a country, it’s a city Portland. https://youtu.be/2GU3TGSWPsw?is=5lJ-PJ44vzzfmCfM
FWIW, Fentanyl is not a psychedelic. Generally speaking, psychedelics aren’t habit forming, meaning people don’t seek for repeated use.
Lol Portland is a fantastic place to live. I literally just took a vacation there last week.
Nobody is stopping you from expressing yourself.
We are just pointing out how misguided your “expressions” are.
Are they misguided though? We don’t know what his personal experience with drugs and their users is.
Okay, I’ll bite. What is it about psychedelics that makes you think they should be banned?
Just an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZDl6cxYzJ4
The fact that Hungary is a DEEPLY right wing country and unfortunately very trad in its ideology of the body and consumption.
I have a rather interesting view on the matter. Typically even my in-group doesn’t agree with me on this. Yet I think all drugs should be legal. Access to drugs should be strictly regulated (imo), but easy. Therapists should be able to obtain license to administer psychedelics. There should be therapeutic centers specializing in use of psilocybin, ketamine, and MDMA. There should be other types of therapeutic centers where you can get access to methamphetamine, opioids, and other drugs—as prescribed necessary for addiction treatment. There should be places to buy recreational drugs like cannabis.
Everything has a place, in my view. Banning something outright is naive, creating more problems in the long run. If you swap from enforcement of prohibition to a more utilitarian approach, you can get a lot more done. That doesn’t mean you give drugs away and create addicts. It means you be a grown up and stop acting like everything is the boogie man, while also acting like anyone who touches it has caught cooties.
People do a pretty good job policing themselves when the system is established in a manner to empower them with good choices. It’s the same idea as the panopticon, as old as Jeremy Bentham, but in reverse. People aren’t going to go get their free meth when culturally it’s known to be for addicts who are at a bad place in life. People who do just want free meth are now surrounded by psychologists who can help.
There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus e.g. on a break up. I think the easy access is the problem. And to fix it with opening it up even more is not a good idea.
I would give people money if they can tell who is a dealer. So the market itself would fix the problem.
Easy access isn’t the problem and hasn’t even been tried. There isn’t easy access. There’s illegal access through shady networks with unverified merchants and products. That’s the result of the prohibition… that and decades of a stupid war on drugs.
“Opening it up more” presumes that I mean “give more people more access to more drugs in the same way they do now.” That’s not at all what I mean.
There are some social crises in people life where policing themselves gets lower focus
Sure. Then they can just go to their local gas station drug dealer and buy some meth then. Your solution doesn’t seem much better. I don’t see how this really argues against a utilitarian approach to drug regulation.
I know that most people describe these hallucinations as unpleasant, but I do kinda want to know. I wanna meet those little guys.
Potentially (potentially doing a LOT of heavy lifting here) unethical, make a reasonably comfortable tiny person cell, take the mushrooms, put a tiny person in the cell. A second person who is completely unaware of the previous events takes the mushroom and we see if they can see the same tiny person still in the cell.
why does the tiny person need to be in a cell?
So that in the 1 in a however silly big number chance that they turn out to be real, they can’t run off between person 1 taking the mushrooms and person 2 taking the mushrooms. Thus producing a more objectively verifiable result.
Collect enough of them in their own cells and we can battle them like Pokemon!
they found no close matches to genes associated with psilocybin or ibotenic acid, two well-known mushroom hallucinogens
None that we already know about, not the same as none
At some point, they acknowledged that there must be some sort of unknown metabolite at work.
deleted by creator
No matter what it is, it is fascinating in its own right that it has such a specific visual effect on users.
Maybe this mushroom was very common once and is the source for folk tales of all sorts.
I mean there are truly a lot of old stories involving tiny people.
I think that’s true of a lot of myths, folk tales, religions, etc. Those people were eating all sorts of weird things, and there was no FDA policing the food supply. LSD can be derived from moldy rye bread, and is probably the explanation for lots of mass hallucinations over the centuries.
It seems plausible that stories of entities like fairies and elves could have arisen from experiences with substances like these mushrooms.
There are also a lot of old stories about people seeing tall slender alien-like creatures. I wonder if there’s a substance that causes that.
“Biosynthetic gene mining of the L. asiatica genome found no close hits with any genes known in the production of mushroom psychoactive compounds,” write the researchers in their published paper.
“This supports our hypothesis of the presence of a novel unidentified metabolite responsible for the unique hallucinogenic properties of L. asiatica.”
Yeah. No known hallucinogens.
Now it gets interesting, as they try to figure out the mechanism. It’s interesting that it can be cooked out of the mushrooms over enough time.
I love mushrooms, and sometime cook them well-done, for burgers and such, and sometimes I keep them medium, for eggs and spaghetti sauce. I’d probably be tripping now and then.
Yay, new drugs!
Huey Lewis will be so excited by this news!
Love that song! “Bustin’ makes me feel good!”
Exactly. Or even- no known hallucinogens synthesized by their canonical biochemical pathways by enzymes expressed from the host species genome.
The OG hallucinogen, ergot, is ingested by eating wheat. If one presumed that the substance is made by wheat, and mined the wheat genome, they would never find the genes for its synthesis, because the hallucinogen is made by mold growing on the wheat.
It’s very rare you can draw a strong conclusion from negative results.Rye is the most common place ergot grows, which is another common bread grain. I am not disagreeing with your post, and ergot can grow on wheat too, just pointing out that rye is a much more common source of egot contamination.
this is one of the more polite “um actually”-s I’ve ever read
I dont really know these things but i always just assumed rye (and barely) was just a kind of wilder less domesticated wheat.
all cereals are related rather closely
Maybe it’s not a hallucination at all. Maybe the mushroom is actually an anti-hallucinogen. It suppresses the hallucinations that normally prevent us from seeing the tiny people.
Anti-glamour mushrooms
It’s the W-class Mnestic agent in the mushroom.
You will forget everything once you exit the room anyway
Once you see them, they can see you
Like when you go to a friend’s house with a timid cat, and the moment they see you, they panic and run under a bed.
Fnord
That reminds me, I have to make a trip to IKEA. I need a new Fnord.
I suddenly feel uneasy reading these comments after you didn’t post anything.
If you can’t see it, it can’t eat you
That’s a good rule of thumb, let’s go hiking in the woods!
Now there’s a reference I haven’t heard in a long time.
A long time.
Doesn’t look like anything to me
Knurd mushrooms
They’re just enabling you to see the fae that are always there. DO NOT GIVE THEM YOUR NAME, NO MATTER WHAT!
prob also grow in a perfect circle
I just saw a beautiful Fairy Ring, about eight feet in diameter. It was nearly perfect, with a couple of small breaks, but it was a clear circle, populated with a wide variety of sizes, from little ones, up to some that were about 6-8" across! I was kicking myself later for not pulling over to take a picture. I’m kicking myself now just writing about it.
when you inevitably try to find the spot again you cannot find it for some reason
I’ve already tried to find it, and it’s gone. Somebody may have harvested it. I considered it.
lots of fungi do that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairy_ring
it’s because of nutrients in the ground being evenly spread out and getting consumed from a center outwards, at equal speed.
Under no circumstances should you enter into any form of contract with them
Well it does contain a psychedelic drug, just not one that we’ve identified yet.
Have you considered that the tiny people are real /s
No /s required. A proper investigation should include that scenario.
It doesn’t need to be, there is reasonable proof that humans and other mammals naturally synthesises (trace amounts off) dmt, which are presumed to be used and broken down incredibly quickly. We still don’t know why, what its used for or have hard proof where its produced (pineal gland is main suspect for having all ingredients in theory)
In theory something could trigger an effect that stops it from breaking down or produce it at a faster rate, therefore triggering psychedelics effects with out the consumed substance containing anything psychedelic itself.
Dmt is known for seeing (machine) elves, does not sound that far away from seeing mini people.
Maybe the DMT causes our dreams? Anybody who has tripped knows that dreams are just another hallucinatory experience. Wouldn’t surprise me at all if we found out they were caused by our own bodies creating an hallucinogen.
After all, it wasn’t that long ago that we discovered Endorphins, which are addictive drugs in their own right.
The reason we suspect the pineal gland is cause it has all the ingredients…
Which it also needs to produce the sleep molecule melatonin. Which is a triptomine.
The theory is that it shifts over to producing a large amount of dmt twice, at birth, and at death. (If i recall correctly)
well i’ve said for years that my brain produces its own mind-altering substances, in larger amounts than other people produce it, and it does have an effect on me. i’ve always kinda seen the world very differently from other people … yeah i do think that my mind actually produces its own … how are they called? psychedelics.
That might just be a flavor autism honestly,
Source: i have one of these flavours of autism. People have often judged me for being high while i know there where no drugs were involved.
No OUTSIDE drugs involved, but maybe there are internal drugs involved. You wouldn’t know, because you’ve always felt that way, it’s normal to you. But those on the outside recognize typical trippy behavior.
Technically speaking its all drugs for everyone all the way down.
Even besides the fact that mood and emotions are largely controlled by endocannabinoids. The difference between normal chemicals, medical chemicals and drug ones is a cultural distinction.
Good hypothesis but the accounts I’ve read from this mushroom are far different from my experience with DMT
You don’t know that. Maybe it just disables the tiny people filter we normally have.
An anti-memetic counter agent.
that would be a psychedelic drug.
More fnordposting
Lanmaoa asiatica
My sincerest apologies. I know the way out.
This kills the tiny people
I had that mower. It’s a good mower. It definitely could do the job.
Well yeah, these guys live there
damn, there really is a large number of stories about small people, now that i think about it.
- gulliver’s travels
- fairies
- smurfs
Minions
Clickbait headline, the primary object of that study was to figure out phylogeny of these mushrooms. finding no known genes associated with known hallucinogens is a bonus and pretty useless info because the compound responsible for this activity is not known, how do you know how it’s made then
Regardless of the actual metabolite responsible, this does raise the question of whether, if any other species consume them and are susceptible, they see tiny versions of their own species?
I always wonder if the cows get high. On the right day it’s like daisies in summer and they’re just munching grass all day.
Deer seek out psilocybin in nature and they’re dumb as fuck.
The psylocibin mushroom specifically grows on cow shit so some of them have to be getting dosed at some point.
I’m referring to libs which do not grow in cow shit.
Now that’s a question. How to test it?
Monkeys seem like a good place to start. Similar enough to us to see if it’s unique to humans, small enough to not start ripping someone’s face off if it goes badly.
Yeah but how do you get an experimental result from them?
Mackaques love touchscreens, amd can be trained to do complex tasks on tablets placed in their enclosures.
You make a test where they need to press a button when and only when they see tiny monkeys that you can project on a screen or on their floor.
Then you give the drug at various concentrations and placebo, and see if there is a dose dependent increase in the monkeys indicaions of mini monkeys.
Then you can repeat the experiment after treatment with antipsychotic, if it prevents the mini monkey reporting, you already have a hint at the mechanism.
Any nonhuman primate lab can do this from 1-2 million dollars, should we start a go fund me?Get one of them sign language moneys and see if they start asking for tiny bananas
Can’t you just ask them? Like train them to show what they are seeing by pointing to one of multiple pictures.
I think you could watch pupil response, body temp, sweating, brain scans, etc and get a good idea.
I thought we were trying to see if the hallucinations of the tiny men changed to match your species’ body shape
Monkey brain scan will change depending on what it sees. Monkey sees humans vs monkey sees monkey is a very different looking scan result.
Trying to scan a monkey’s brain, while it’s awake and interacting is not a trivial task. MRI scanners are uncomfortable for humans, and we know what is going on with the big scary machine.
Awkward? Unexpected results are the building blocks of science!
We learned a new question to be answered.
we learned another degree of freedom
