|
|
|
|
|
|
by CameronNemo
2192 days ago
|
|
|
Results from studies that used an antipsychotic across the board would not be generalizeable to traditional experiences. At that point, why use L in the first place if older, faster acting substances are available. Mescaline and psilocybine have been used in spiritual and therapeutic settings for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Where is the interest in L coming from, if not ease of slipping it past customs and other law enforcement? |
|
|
Since people are studying psilocybine for depression, PTSD, etc, why not others like Mescaline, LSD, or DMT? Why leave something off the table? Maybe LSD is great for a specific type of PTSD and psilocybine for depression? You got to study it to figure out. And who knows, maybe these drugs don't actually help at all. Either way, you have to study them to figure anything out.
> Mescaline and psilocybine have been used in spiritual and therapeutic settings for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
Yes and no. Those are the active ingredients, but these have not been distilled. From my extremely naive understanding, other chemicals here could affect people differently. So to create a safer and more therapeutic drug. Maybe you even need some of those other chemicals. But you can't find out without testing.
One thing is for sure, in a clinical setting you want very controlled dosages. You're not going to get that by ingesting plants/fungi.