Talk:Psilocybin mushroom/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing info on (nonexistant) harmful effect 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with Haiduc. --Wetman 23:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Countdown. If there are no objections, I'll move the page tomorrow to "Psychedelic Mushrooms" Haiduc 02:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Renaming this page? 

message: 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.
 Genjix 16:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  LSD Health Effects? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  slang 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: ...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  -- 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The berserker myth... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Just as easy to make a redirect from there. AP 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops - accidentally marked that minor, my bad. AP 22:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Physical Effect: Death???? 

message: How do you use them? If I find one can I just eat it? Cuzandor 01:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  What do you mean by guide? Cuzandor 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See trip sitter. j_freeman 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Long-term side effects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Decreased control of bowels? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Identification 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: I've always seem the second term. Which one is right? FilipeS 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's psychedelic. Psychadelic is a misspelling. Angular 19:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Psychedelic or psychadelic? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Possible addition of new section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Section Required 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Psychological effects 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clause? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: 71.138.240.182 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dosage information needs to be clarified 

message: 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. . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factual error re: Maya/South America 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Omitted section - types of psilocybin mushrooms 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 23:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  split? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with Psilocybin? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  psilocybin mushrooms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Psilocybin mushrooms outside the Western Hemisphere 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dosage 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  Still legal in Holland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite needed? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Buddha overdosed on mushroom? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rename article to "Psilocybe Mushrooms" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Least harmful drug according to British experts. 

message: 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. Noformation Talk 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Hopkins study 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Studies suggest Psilocybin Mushroom may help depression 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Stoned Ape Theory" 

message: This section is lacking the rest of the world. What about Japan's quasi-legal perspective?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/magic-mushrooms-slip-through-odd-legal-loophole-in-drug-strict-japan/article4148317/
Danwiggy (talk) 05:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legality