I have had some comments and questions about my channeled blog post on how dangerous different substances actually are, so I’d like to answer them here. In the previous post there were two lists. The first was a list of substances that are harmful, while the second was a list of substances that might be harmful dependig on how we use them.
Mushrooms can destroy the kidneys after ONE trip.
Magic mushrooms may put a little extra load on the kidneys, which can be felt as a soreness, especially when the mushrooms have been eaten fresh. I have however never found any information that mushrooms would be dangerous, even at very high doses and prolonged use. Had there been cases where people actually got their kidneys damaged, I guess that it would be well documented and thus familiar knowledge among people who work with psychedelics. But I have heard about ignorant drug counselors in Sweden spreading such misinformation.
When I google it while writing this, I still find no evidence of harmed kidneys. What I do find is a Swedish article from Läkartidningen (magazine for the Swedish union of Medical Doctors) which states that “The mushrooms do not contain toxins which harm inner organs. […] The risk of severe medical ill effects while using psilocybe mushrooms is mainly due to physical trauma as a result of uncontrolled behavior. Later, so-called ” flashbacks ” may lead to problems of a psychological nature. Another aspect is the risk of confusion with other mushroom species. Kidney failure has been reported after ingestion of mushrooms that were thought to be hallucinogenic, but in fact contained kidney injuring toxins.”
I dare almost certainly dismiss the claim that psychedelic mushrooms destroys kidney function. That claim seems to be part of the extensive flora of false “facts” that figure in the drug debate.
You rank cocaine as less harmful than amphetamine, while much research has shown that cocaine claims more victims, is more addictive and so on. How is that?
The list presented is channeled from the spirit world. I haven’t put it together. When it comes to amphetamine and cocaine, I have far too little knowledge to be able to say anything about it.
MDMA is included in the category of dangerous substances. What do you think about MDMA´s potential as a therapeutic tool? Dr. Rick Doblin (MAPS) conducts research on this and he is also a user of MDMA. Personally I would put MDMA in the category “dangerous if used incorrectly.”
The people at MAPS once showed me a letter written by two parents, where a therapist had done MDMA-assisted therapy on the family when the 30 year old daughter was about to pass away in cancer. The family was locked in utter death panic/anxiety. In the session they all took MDMA together and then they looked through their old photo album, all their old home movies and talked about all the wonderful moments that they had together. MDMA releases serotonin, which among other things makes you very empathetic. After they found the deep connection and gratitude for all they have experienced together, they were able to leave each other in love, instead of being locked in panic. The letter made an extremely deep impression on me and I get all chocked up just writing about it. With that letter still fresh in my memory (I read it in 2006) I of course think it should be legal. It is dreadful when laws prevent such help.
However, shortly after I met a guy who was also around 30. He had used a lot of Ecstacy and had, when I met him, quite recently completed many years of therapy trying to recover from the abuse. He told me that he had four years of his life that were just a mush. He could not distinguish one event from another, one year from another. It was four years lost and it had taken him four more years of therapy to accept that he had lost those four years. Now of course Ecstacy is not the pure substance MDMA , so there is no telling what he actually used, but I think it highlights the other end of the spectrum of that drug.
I definitely see a place for MDMA, but I might also put it on the second list.
Mescaline is a genuine psychedelic substance. Why is it on the second list, among the substances that can harm us if we use them incorrectly? Should it not be included among the substances that put us in touch with the gods?
I know far to little about the substance Mescaline to have a hunch about where it should be placed, but I also reacted when I saw it on the list. One interpretation that I find plausible is this:
In traditional plant medicine you work with one or several plants. In the case of Mescaline the most common plants to work are probably San Pedro or Peyote. These plants are revered as teachers and they are very communicative. There is intelligence there far beyond what we can imagine and it guides, helps and heals us.
When we isolate the molecule Mescaline we strip it of all else it was in relation to. We strip it of the intelligence that was there. This is what modern Western medicine does when it isolates molecules without understanding their functions and then forces them together with other molecules, hoping to solve illness from an intellectual level. Mescaline will still give a genuine psychedelic experience and if you are good at navigating it you can have great breakthroughs. But it will be without a plant teacher there to guide and heal you. Perhaps that difference can be what qualifies it for the second list?
Isn’t cannabis a psychedelic substance? If so, why is it on the second list?
Cannabis is usually referred to as a semi-psychedelic substance. In my opinion it can have psychedelic properties, but I would not confuse it with true psychedelics. If you have smoked cannabis, I don’t think that you should be under the impression that you have tried psychedelics.
The plant is considered sacred in many spiritual contexts, for example among the Sadhus in India, Sufis of Pakistan and Rastafarians in Jamaica. However, I have never seen it used that way in Sweden. Here I have mostly seen a recreational, or in some cases a medical use.
I have smoked my share of cannabis and feel that it fits very well in the second list, along with sugar and caffeine. It is clearly nowhere near as dangerous as any of the substances on the first list, even when used intensively.by