Talk:Peyote

message: Castañeda's works have largely been discredited as serious anthropological texts. Is that worth a note in THIS article or is the section on criticism in the Castañeda article enough? --Dante Alighieri 00:47 20 May 2003 (UTC)
:I just added a small note that Castañeda is considered by most to be fiction. --Bk0 04:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Castañeda

message: The information listed for average dose was wildly inaccurate.  5g of dried buttons wouldn't contain anywhere close to 500mg.  In order for 5g to contain even the low end of the mescaline dosage scale suggested (200mg), they would need to contain 5% mescaline by weight.  A more typical figure is 2%.  Also, 500mg of mescaline is a VERY high dose, not a common dose at all, and "effective dose" is not the right term at all here (effective dose in pharmacology refers to the minimum dose to produce effects; I'm not aware of any study measuring the ED-50 of pure mescaline but its threshold is listed on Erowid as 100mg).  I reworded the information. 99.129.135.10 (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: dosage

message: I don't know if it should be removed completely, or if someone wants to go digging to find the proper link, but the link to the Canadian "Controlled Drugs And Substances Act" is no longer accurate.
:The first time you follow the link you are taken to an "Update Notice" page telling about a new technical environment for the Laws Web site. If you follow the http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-38.8/229687.html link at the bottom of the "Update Notice" page (or follow the "Controlled Drugs And Substances Act" link on the Peyote page a second time) you will see the correct page. 
:Hvidberg 23:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dead link

message: Shouldn't the taxobox contain some notice about the endangered status? 205.217.105.2 15:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know whether it is on any official government list of endangered plants (nor do I know if that matters as far as wikipedia's taxo box is concerned). The general consensus is that it is highly endangered in the wild, some even consider it a cultigen. --Bk0 01:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: That's the related (and not sacred) Lophophora diffusa. Circeus 02:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Endangered

message: The information about mescaline is a little off topic and sounds like it condones the use of the drug. Consider revision.
:I do not see the paragraph either condoning or condemning. How would you change it? Haiduc 2 July 2005 10:45 (UTC)
It claims that set and setting can [i]guarantee[/i] a healthy trip. I think few would agree that such a guarantee is possible.
-Ballzac
:This is never guaranteed because a lot more factors should be taken into consideration, such as the mindset of the individual. I concur that the word guarantee is too definite in this article and therefore should be replaced with a better choice of word, such as assists. Adam 21:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Drug Use

message: I've seen Peyote referred to as Anhalonium lewinii, but Googling for it now there seems to be confusion wether it's just a type of Peyote, another name for it or if it's a seperate species. Does anybody know? 80.203.115.12 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems it's an obsoleted name. I'll make a redirect here. 80.203.115.12 18:50, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anhalonium lewinii 

message: The article doesn't mention anything about the word "Peyote" being quite general, historically, only recently coming to mean L. williamsii specifically.  The German Wikipedia also lists other cacti which were considered either Peyote or Peyotillo (False Peyote).  They are:
* Ariocarpus fissuratus 
* Ariocarpus kotschoubeyanus
* Ariocarpus retusus
* Astrophytum asterias
* Astrophytum capricorne
* Astrophytum myriostigma
* Aztekium ritterii
* Strombocactus disciformis
* Obregonia denegrii
* Pelecyphora aselliformis
* Mammillaria longimamma
* Mammillaria pectinifera
And I'd like to discuss the possibility of adding a section like this to the article, and maybe creating separate articles -- one to discuss Lophophora williamsii as a cactus from a botanical stadpoint and one to discuss Peyote more generally.
Stones1982 06:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peyotillo, Terminology, etc. 

message: Please note that I have added a picture that I took of my baby Peyote cactus. The reason for this is that there were no "true" pictures of a Peyote cactus, but rather 2 pictures of relatively old Peyotes which have both begun to flower. I believe this picture now fills a gap in the sequence of images now we have a picture showing a Peyote's inception. Adam 21:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baby Peyote Picture 

message: My Dutch friend sent me 3 cacti in the post: Trichocereus bridgesii, Peyote and a San Pedro. When the package arrived I received a note that this package had been opened by HM Customs. I have the HM Custom's card which is a generic addition to the package once it has been checked and resealed. Should I add this to the article as I received the package in pefect condition with all the contents intact and unharmed. If so, I will also upload the card they sent with the package. Adam 21:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's rather interesting, but I think you just got lucky. I'm fairly sure peyote is illegal in the UK, so the custom's official probably just didn't realize what it was. Or, perhaps, there was no proof that you intended to consume the said cactus. Fuzzform 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peyote is, in fact, legal in the UK. This applies to the possession and cultivation of peyote yet not the preparation into a consumable drug. Renegatus (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality in the United Kingdom 

message: Taken from the Department of Justice's website. Somewhat low quality, but perhaps if the article expands, it could be included. Fuzzform 03:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This false-color DEA image has already been discussed and removed from Wikipedia previously. See above, "Peyote picture". Peyote is not fluorescent green. Tova Hella (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another image 

message: Should there be a separate article for peyote as a drug in the way that cannabis has separate articles for its various uses (e.g. Canabis (drug), Medical cannabis, Hemp, etc.)? Perhaps the article needs to be built up a bit before we worry about that though...  Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 20:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is clearly necessary, especially now that the Plants naming convention makes it impossible to have a plant article at Peyote anyway. Circeus 23:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We have redirects for that. There is no need for an early split as long as the article is that short. Cacycle 12:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think the naming convention (WP:NC (flora)) makes it impossible to title articles at the common name. In fact it gives explicit permission for such articles if they're culturally or economically significant enough. I think this one qualifies and I agree with the recent move. If there is sufficient information on the botany (botanical history, taxonomy, botanical description, etc.) of the plant versus its common use or perception, then by all means split (and take the taxobox off this page and place it on the binomial-titled page). --Rkitko (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate article for Peyote as a drug? 

message: I think the pronunciation given in the article should be removed. Pronunciations of scientific names tend to vary wildly amongst botanists within the English-speaking world, and even more so when the pronunciation in other languages are considered. This would avoid the need for an IPA pronunciation (which would be silly since the pronunciation could never be truly international anyways). Anyone disagree? Djlayton4 | talk  |  contribs 13:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: An editor with no previous edit history from that IP Address has tried removing ", and you feel like an Indian, or what you figure an Indian feels like. Primitive, you understand" from the quote in the "Popular culture" section via this edit.  I guess that editor feels that the particular text is offensive to Indians (or at least American Indians).  I feel that such a removal would detract from the power of the quote, and I'd like to see consensus for such a removal here before it is actually removed.    — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 70.247.37.136 has removed this bit of the quotation again. I would agree with Jeff G. that this bit of the quotation is highly relevant to the subject matter. I don't feel that this quotation from a 50 year old book would be offensive to American Indians, but rather it reflects the association of the plant with the cultures of some native groups. If 70.247.37.136 has a legitimate reason to remove this sentence of quotation, it should be discussed here as his edits and those of previous anonymous editors have been repeatedly reverted, suggesting that consensus is leaning in the other direction. DJLayton4 (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Leaving political correctness aside, I have to wonder what the Burroughs quote adds to the article. I do not find it particularly informative or widely applicable. It is a marginally interesting bit of fiction, and it is presented in a highly idiosyncratic manner, in which the personality of the speaker seems to take precedence over the subject of the discussion. That personality is not particularly pleasant, as I understand Burroughs himself was not exactly out to win any prizes for sociability either. So why are we dragging him and his conceits into this article at all? Haiduc (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I obviously deleted the rant by Burroughs. As I previously mentioned, it does not inform the reader about peyote, it informs the reader about Burroughs. If we are going to quote somebody here, let's quote Weyerhoff, or Anderson, or Guy Mount. What they have to say is relevant here. Borroughs is not, and barely merits a mention. Haiduc (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you've deleted the "rant" the remaining mention of Burroughs has absolutely nothing to do with peyote. You might want to at least mention that he recounts his experiences instead of leaving it as discussing only yage, which is irrelevant. DJLayton4 (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Political correctness
 Pointless rant 

message: I don't see anything on the Controlled Drugs And Substances Act which states that peyote is exempt.  If I'm missing something, please let me know, but otherwise I think that section should be deleted.  
Never mind, I found it. :P—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Law 

message: I thought they were eating mushrooms, not peyote.  How can one be certain? 71.199.104.170 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Guns reference 

message: The section misleadingly cites law concerning federal exemption for members of the Native American Church and erroneously implies this federal exemption is racially limited. Where there is exclusive federal jurisdiction or state law is not racially limited, peyote use by NAC members is legal.http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/cfr/1307/1307_31.htm This exemption from Schedule I is as old as the Controlled Substances Act.
Code Of Federal Regulations
SPECIAL EXEMPT PERSONS 
Section 1307.31 Native American Church. 
The listing of peyote as a controlled substance in Schedule I does not apply to the nondrug use of peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church, and members of the Native American Church so using peyote are exempt from registration. Any person who manufactures peyote for or distributes peyote to the Native American Church, however, is required to obtain registration annually and to comply with all other requirements of law. 
U.S. v. BOYLL, 774 F.Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1991)http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/religion/boyll.html addresses this racial issue specifically and concludes:
For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion and
Order, the Court holds that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31
(1990), the classification of peyote as a Schedule I controlled
substance, see 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c)(12), does not
apply to the importation, possession or use of peyote for bona
fide ceremonial use by members of the Native American Church,
regardless of race.
The cited law in the entry, 42 USC §1996a Traditional Indian religious use of peyote http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=1996a&url=/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001996---a000-.htmlis a response to Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith and protects Indian religious use of peyote (without regard to NAC membership) from prohibition of religious use of peyote or penalization by state laws and defines Indian for purposes of this section but does not protect non-Indian NAC members from state laws against religious use of peyote.Moss&Fern (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be nervous about being a newcomer. Your points are all great and the current version of the law section is, as you point out, in serious need of revision. Please feel free to go ahead and make major changes. I would suggest trying to cover everything that you believe to be notable, but don't go into too much depth about any one topic. Citations are very important, and if you have trouble with them just let me know and I can help out. If you would like to be more thorough, a seperate article, Legality of peyote in the United States, for example, could be easily justified in addition to a revision here as there is much on the subject. If you need any advice or if you would like me to revise your changes, drop a line at my talk page or here. Thanks for your much needed suggestions and I hope you can find some time for making the changes! DJLayton4 (talk) 07:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality, United States, Federal Law 

message: According to the article:
"All Lophophora species are extremely slow growing, often taking three years to reach its root". Does anyone have any idea what this means? Also there are only two species of Lophora.Senor Cuete (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "often taking three years to reach its root"???

message: I'm pretty sure when Beavis was tripping in the desert he was on peyote.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DYlanReed (talk • contribs) 05:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: -Well he eats something, it could be a Peyote cactus, but I've not seen that film in a while. I should watch it, it's funny.--Hellahulla (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Beavis and Butthead Do America

message: Please don't alter a quotation because you think what is quoted is incorrect. Address that seperately if appropriate. I'm not suggesting it's improper to use ellipses or such abridgement but changing the words quoted to "correct" it is actually making the quotation incorrect.  Wikipedia Help has useful guidelines to useful consult about quoting, citing and much more. 
I'm certain Kesey was at work when the inspiration hit him and only took that part out because the citation doesn't verify that. I looked at the old citation and it didn't verify all it was supposed to which was another reason for the change. For what it's worth, in my opinion a lot of the other "popular culture" references are trivial and that's not what needs building up in the article on peyote. Moss&Fern (talk) 10:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't alter a quotation unless the quotation itself is incorrect. Plus Kesey comment & general article comment. 

message: Do we have other names for peyote? Like buttons, mescal? Can anyone verify this? Alphapeta (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  other names 

message: Under "Legality/United States" the first sentence is
:Where there is exclusive federal jurisdiction or state law is not "racially" limited, peyote use by Native American Church members is legal and "racially" neutral in the United States.
This sentence doesn't appear to be grammatically correct, and I can't even parse it enough to understand what the author was trying to say. Maybe it should be reworded to say something like "Peyote is generally illegal under federal laws, however peyote use by Native American Church members in religious ceremonies is exempt from such laws." — Sam 63.138.152.219 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence on legality 

message: The article does not contain any account of the reason why peyote has developed through evolution to devote so much of its make up to hallucinogens. Has anyone considered this ?
Its seems an enigmatic function of the plant to produce something that has no apparent benefit to itself. Flowers, roots, thorns and clorophyl all have an obvious benefit that justify the energy used to produce them. What is the benefit of having hallucinogens present in peyote ?
Without answering this, the article is incomplete.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.116.167 (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Mescaline page also needs expansion to better explain its toxicity (as is suggested on its talk page, the LSD page would be a good model). A topic that seems to be missing from wikipedia is the evolution of plant toxins ("plant toxin" redirects to "toxin"), which either repel herbivores or kill them, thereby protecting the plant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

text: A new article is needed. The topic of plant-herbivore defences has a huge literature, which is probably why nobody has written the article yet. A search in scholar.google.com on the key words "evolution plant alkaloid" produces a lot of articles, old and new. This is a big task that I, for one, don't have time to attempt. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary Purpose of Hallucinogen Content 

message: *this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bookmarks