Are mushrooms and LSD the same thing?

[childofthetao]

Title says it all really, are they the same? If not how do they differ?

Thanks

[~Hippie3]

no.
2 entirely different chemicals/drugs involved.

[CoyoteMesc]

No they are not the same.


they are both psychedelics but are different chemicals all together.

Like beer and liquor, both get you drunk, both very different.

[mydarling]

uhh, no.

mushrooms are naturally occuring living organisms from the kingdom fungi. among other things, they contain the psychoactive alkaloids psilocybin and psilocin.

lsd is a chemically synthesized compound. not related to mushrooms in the slightest.....

[AndyLandy420]

did someone tell you they were?

[~Hippie3]

Originally Posted by CoyoteMesc

No they are not the same.


they are both psychedelics but are different chemicals all together.

Like beer and liquor, both get you drunk, both very different.

bad example as both beer and hard liquor contain the same drug, ethanol.
better example would be
beer and pot.

[wino420]

No But Mushrooms and DMT (spice) are VERY close to the same thing on the molecular level, Psilocybin and DMT that is..

Very Close..

[~Hippie3]

carbon dioxide is very close to carbon monoxide, too
yet they are very different...
one little atom shifted just a wee bit
and you have a different substance,
such superficial similarities don't mean much in chemistry.

[wino420]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

carbon dioxide is very close to carbon monoxide, too
yet they are very different...
one little atom shifted just a wee bit
and you have a different substance,
such superficial similarities don't mean much in chemistry.

Very true, but the molecular similarities definitely out weigh the differences, especially between Psilocin and DMT..

But I agree it is definitely a different compound altogether, even though Psilocin is 4-HO-DMT....

[brain leg]

LSD is derived from fungus, it is actually quite natural. Like psilocyban is derived from mushrooms(but can also be synthesized). TThe difference is Ergot fungus is hellish and gross as a source for natural psychedelics because of al the alkaloids and such, and mushrooms are much more benevolent .

Acid is derived from madness and sickness cool! I never understood why people thought it was "so pure" a like it was "from the future", or a chemical "that has no place in nature".
That's not the image it conjured in my head, but i guess that all depends on what you have been taught to expect.

[wino420]

Originally Posted by brain leg

LSD is derived from fungus, it is actually quite natural. Like psilocyban is derived from mushrooms(but can also be synthesized). TThe difference is Ergot fungus is hellish and gross as a source for natural psychedelics because of al the alkaloids and such, and mushrooms are much more benevolent .

Acid is derived from madness and sickness cool! I never understood why people thought it was "so pure" a like it was "from the future", or a chemical "that has no place in nature".
That's not the image it conjured in my head, but i guess that all depends on what you have been taught to expect.

LSD is very far from being organic and Natural... if you knew anything about what was involved between Ergotamine (which is a "natural" compound) and LSD in synthesis, you'd retract that post, believe me..

[~Hippie3]

for sure,
not the first time this guy has posted bad info here recently either.
it had better stop soon before i drop the hammer.
LSD was never near the ergot fungus,
it was created in the laboratory.

[childofthetao]

Thanks for the info, I always thought LSD came from mushrooms.

Are their effects any different from each other? I'm still under the assumption that the trips are the same from each drug.

Thanks

[August West]

Originally Posted by brain leg

LSD is derived from fungus, it is actually quite natural. Like psilocyban is derived from mushrooms(but can also be synthesized). TThe difference is Ergot fungus is hellish and gross as a source for natural psychedelics because of al the alkaloids and such, and mushrooms are much more benevolent .

Acid is derived from madness and sickness cool! I never understood why people thought it was "so pure" a like it was "from the future", or a chemical "that has no place in nature".
That's not the image it conjured in my head, but i guess that all depends on what you have been taught to expect.

wtf bro?
i don't even know where to start with the disinformation you've posted.
so i'll just say, wtf?

as per:

Originally Posted by brain leg

i guess that all depends on what you have been taught to expect.

i think you've proved your own point

[wino420]

Originally Posted by childofthetao

Thanks for the info, I always thought LSD came from mushrooms.

Are their effects any different from each other? I'm still under the assumption that the trips are the same from each drug.

Thanks

TONS OF DIFFERENCES>>>>>>>>

I suggest to anybody that is new to psychedelics to READ!!!!!!
Erowid would be a great place to start, besides here that is..Erowid is more of a Vault of info and experiences (but take them all with a grain of salt, there's a lot of young idiots that screw up that sites integrity), as opposed to a Forum..

Ok, to start some of the differences between LSD and Mushrooms are as follows,

Duration, the effects from LSD (true LSD which is getting rarer and rarer) last from 8-12 hours with a peak of effects in the middle, around 4-6 hours into the trip.. the decline is gradual after the peak and those last 3 hours (at least in my experience) the effects are minimal, especially the last two hours.. Where as Psilocybin's effects last roughly half as long.

Most folks will tell you that compared to LSD, Psilocybin has a heavier body buzz, and even some sexual arrousal (usually in smaller doses does this effect occur). Psilocybin is typically not as exauhsting of an experience as LSD.

Visually, I perfer Psilocybin over LSD, on Psil. I have feelings of exhaltation and one-ness with the almighty.

My experiences from LSD feel more superficial and less meaningfull,
as opposed to the profound Insight, Joy and Beauty that is usually revealed to me from a healthy Mushroom Dose...

I have seldom had spiritual experiences from LSD, while they were fun (many of them) they seemed meaningless afterward.

LSD does hold a special place in my heart however (as my Avatar should tell you, to those of you that remember that and if you were in the scene then you surely know what it is.), that's the Prankster in me though...

[childofthetao]

Thanks for the info again, very enlightening.

I don't think I'll bother with LSD, but one day I'll have to give mushies a try! I'll have to grow them myself though, I don't know anyone who sells them.

[wino420]

Originally Posted by childofthetao

Thanks for the info again, very enlightening.

I don't think I'll bother with LSD, but one day I'll have to give mushies a try! I'll have to grow them myself though, I don't know anyone who sells them.

i didn't want to turn you off of L, but just voice my opinion of it..

I have learned a lot about the mind from L... Id definitley suggest trying it, especially if you know your source is a good one thats not passing of some bromo for LSD. True LSD is a great thing to find and its a blessing to be fortunate to get ahold of good true, quality L in these days of bastard analogue research chemicals.

also if they want more than 5-7 bucks a tab, tell them to fuck off...

[whatchamacallit]

SWIM's favorite is probably LSD and he has reached enlightened states with both, the main difference he would describe as follows: LSD sort of lets one take the trip through the regions of the mind, and oneness with everything (the enlightening experience many speak of), more self-guided, where as shrooms, seem to just sit him down and and tell him this is how it is..

The comedown on shrooms is a bit easier, especially for sleeping after the effects wear off, while the come up seems rougher, and almost uncomfortable especially on higher doses.. With LSD the come up seems a bit easier, for SWIM, and the comedown more gradual, with a longer trip, which is great for long nights of music festivals. SWIM finds it easier to deal with people on LSD (dose-dependent as well), while shrooms usually have him want to be away from others, for at least the first two hours of the trip..

Both trips, SWIM enjoys and he has taken both extensively in various situations, so he does enjoy both tremendously, however, depending on the set and setting, he may choose one over the other..

[wino420]

Originally Posted by whatchamacallit

SWIM's favorite is probably LSD and he has reached enlightened states with both, the main difference he would describe as follows: LSD sort of lets one take the trip through the regions of the mind, and oneness with everything (the enlightening experience many speak of), more self-guided, where as shrooms, seem to just sit him down and and tell him this is how it is..

The comedown on shrooms is a bit easier, especially for sleeping after the effects wear off, while the come up seems rougher, and almost uncomfortable especially on higher doses.. With LSD the come up seems a bit easier, for SWIM, and the comedown more gradual, with a longer trip, which is great for long nights of music festivals. SWIM finds it easier to deal with people on LSD (dose-dependent as well), while shrooms usually have him want to be away from others, for at least the first two hours of the trip..

Both trips, SWIM enjoys and he has taken both extensively in various situations, so he does enjoy both tremendously, however, depending on the set and setting, he may choose one over the other..

good way to put it What.

[EmmisonJ]

Originally Posted by brain leg

LSD is derived from fungus, it is actually quite natural. Like psilocyban is derived from mushrooms(but can also be synthesized). TThe difference is Ergot fungus is hellish and gross as a source for natural psychedelics because of al the alkaloids and such, and mushrooms are much more benevolent .

Acid is derived from madness and sickness cool! I never understood why people thought it was "so pure" a like it was "from the future", or a chemical "that has no place in nature".
That's not the image it conjured in my head, but i guess that all depends on what you have been taught to expect.

2cb has its organic roots in anethole, mdma from safrole, meth from ephedra, crack from coca, heroin from opium poppy, all of which are far from "natural" (whatever your personal definition of the barriers of natural mean) and synthed by man... i'm missing your point i think. also lsd is indeed "pure", it is a molecule of its own and is by far more "from the future" than mushrooms, which have been around probably longer than us... whereas lsd was first synthed by man, not fungus. i apologize ahead of time if i misinterpret what you meant.

[Soliver]

Shrooms are soooo much easier on the body, IMO- LSD kills me, not sure if it's the drug
or the frenetic activity while tripping, but for chilling out, walking around, or just thinking about
life, the universe, and everything, you can't beat shrooms

Besides, you can't grow LSD in a shoebox - that alone makes shrooms far superior overall

soliver

[~Hippie3]

2cb has its organic roots in anethole, mdma from safrole, meth from ephedra, crack from coca, heroin from opium poppy

well, not exactly.
the use of the term
root
implies that the drugs listed
were originally derived from
plants.
that however is not the case.
take meth as an example.
the Nazis invented meth for military purposes
[they wanted soldiers that could fight for days without sleep]
and they did not do it by extracting from ephedra.
it was pure chemistry on an industrial scale.
now i admit that there are similar compounds
to many man-made drugs
found in nature.
but to claim that meth evolved from ephedra
is just misleading and disingenuous,
a distortion of truth in order to bolster a false premise.

[Shadowlord]

Originally Posted by Soliver

Shrooms are soooo much easier on the body, IMO- LSD kills me, not sure if it's the drug
or the frenetic activity while tripping, but for chilling out, walking around, or just thinking about
life, the universe, and everything, you can't beat shrooms

Besides, you can't grow LSD in a shoebox - that alone makes shrooms far superior overall

soliver

Apart from the power of psilocybin, here's where I agree the most w/ Soliver.
LSD is great, Mescaline is also great. One is almost impossible for the masses to make. Cacti grow, but they grow slow. Need lots of cactus around to have several doses on hand at any time. But Shrooms, they might be a little hard to learn to grow at first, but with effort and a little luck you can grow a whole bunch right out of a shoebox like Sol said.
Very powerful ally/teacher and one can be self-sufficient w a little time and effort.

[EmmisonJ]

Originally Posted by Hippie3

well, not exactly.
the use of the term
root
implies that the drugs listed
were originally derived from
plants.
that however is not the case.
take meth as an example.
the Nazis invented meth for military purposes
[they wanted soldiers that could fight for days without sleep]
and they did not do it by extracting from ephedra.
it was pure chemistry on an industrial scale.
now i admit that there are similar compounds
to many man-made drugs
found in nature.
but to claim that meth evolved from ephedra
is just misleading and disingenuous,
a distortion of truth in order to bolster a false premise.

i apologize as my point obviously didn't come out right because i agree with you 100% so allow me to clarify. root (as that means it's the original precursor from a timeline standpoint, which is inaccurate as you said) was obviously a bad choice in wording, i should have just said precursor and left it at that, because then it wouldn't be applying a timeline to the statement. i actually in no way meant that those drugs were only produced or even necessarily first produced through the natural precursors (some were, some weren't) so forgive my bad wording, "root" was a bad choice in words. i was actually just trying to make a different point altogether which was in reference to his remark regarding ergot's effect as "craziness", etc, and i was actually trying to make a point that just because ergot can be one of the precursors doesn't mean lsd is in anyway similar in effect to ergot. just because half the molecule may be the same. ie: the methylenedioxy ring in mdma (approx half the molecule of mdma) is identical to that of safrole's md-ring, making safrole a great starting compound (but not saying it's the only precursor that can be used or that all drugs were first synthed through their naturally available precursors). this doesn't mean that safrole's effects are in any way similar to that of mdma's or even half-way similar just because they share a md-ring. even the intermediary ketone, which is even more closely related to mdma, shares no similarities in pharmacological effect even though it's just a couple reductions away from the amine, mdma. mdma is just an example, other comparisons can be made with the other drugs mentioned as well, depending on the precursor used depends on the similarities in the molecular structure but in no way means they necessarily have any similarity from a pharmacological effect standpoint.

the starting point of those compounds don't have to necessarily be ephedra, anethole, etc, which i believe was the point you were making about meth synthesis by the germans and whatever non-ephedra precursor they used (i don't know the history on meth). there are many many ways to modify molecules just like there are many ways to drive from one city to another, the only limiting factor is our knowledge of chemistry (ie: knowledge of the routes to get to the destination) and ability to obtain precursors (ie: the means to do so). i also didn't mean that you can go directly from those precursors to the desired end compound either, sure there are some one-pot synths out there but there also could potentially be MANY MANY intermediates which one must go through prior to obtaining the goal, it just depends on what type of synth you're doing (ie: the route you've chosen to get to your destination). what i was trying to point out was that many psychoactive compounds we can come from a "natural" source as the starting point, what i did not add to that but should have was that in no ways means they are similar from a pharmacological standpoint. sorry for the misunderstanding, i should be more thorough in my responses sometimes

[darklordofaudio]

Whether or not LSD has its "roots" in ergot, its discovery was certainly inspired by the fungus. Albert Hofmann sought to coax useful medicines out of natural ergot alkaloids by making subtle variations to their structures, surmising that its curious and frightening toxicity might point to other curious, potent pharmacologies. Ergotamine was a known, commercially available medicine in Hofmann's day, and his research led to the discovery of a number of other ergot-based medicines in addition to LSD. Shulgin also took his cue from naturally-occurring substances, filling the pages of PiHKAL with variations on the mescaline-safrole-norepinephrine theme, and TiHKAL with variations of serotonin, psilocin, and DMT.

but to claim that meth evolved from ephedra
is just misleading and disingenuous

It is my understanding that methamphetamine was originally derived from ephedrine by a Japanese organic chemist in the late 1890s. However, by the time it came into popular use during WWII, its production was, yes, essentially synthetic and on an industrial scale. Ergoline-based drugs, on the other hand, still largely rely on industrially-cultured ergot for the basic four-ring ergoline backbone, because the total synthesis of such a structure is not economically feasible.

[~Hippie3]

It is my understanding that methamphetamine was originally derived from ephedrine by a Japanese organic chemist in the late 1890s.

indeed.
i bow to your superior knowledge.

[Looky]

You can trip from many different things. Cacti, LSD, Shrooms, DMT, even people have found they could trip on crappy things like, well I'm not going to say, but over-the counter stuff that IMO is very unsafe. Shrooms are very different than LSD. LSD, a part of a strong drop can make you trip uncontrollably for 10+ hours. That quality is hard to find now days. The trip I find very different as well. As far as the chemicals or molecules in them, as stated previously are completely different.