2 ms·

>I'm pretty sure the author's talking about "chemicals" and not chemicals. No, you are completely missing the point. He was attacking the mythical duality you

>I'm pretty sure the author's talking about "chemicals" and not chemicals. No, you are completely missing the point. He was attacking the mythical duality you are perpetuating. There is no binary distinction between psychoactive and non psychoactive chemicals. Water IS psychoactive. Protein in chicken IS psychoactive. Sugar IS psychoactive. Let's take chicken for example. We can turn that into a chemical with a long name quite easily! Assuming you are consuming low fat chicken, the majority is protein. Protein is a bunch of chemicals called amino acids. One of the most common amino acids by weight in chicken is (2S)-2-amino-3-(1H-indol-3-yl)propanoic acid, Tryptophan. Tryptophan is THE building block of serotonin and all other tryptamines your body produces. Are you aware 2-(1H-indol-3-yl)-N,N-dimethylethanamine (DMT) is responsible for dreaming and near death experiences is synthesized in your body directly from that chicken and could not have been synthesized without it? Sugar->Glucose-> 6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-2,3,4,5-tetrol. Sugar has clear and obvious excitatory psychoactive effects on the brain. Some researchers even think cognitive decline\Alzheimer's may be related to insulin resistance in the CNS similar to diabetes. The author tells you exact dosages in the article for the amount of Nutmeg you need to consume to hallucinate. He gives more than enough numbers for an opinion piece. Regarding chocolate you can test your wrong hypothesis quite easily. Buy pure, NON-alkalized cocoa powder in the store today and consume 3 tablespoons.

Cushman 16y ago
I... guess we disagree? I don't see what you're reading into the article, at all. As I read it he's clearly referring to long-named, psychoactive substances with every single use of "chemical". Anyway, not much point in arguing about that. Your bringing up tryptophan is the classic example of what I'm talking about. Someone notices that turkey has tryptophan in it, tryptophan is psychoactive on paper, and suddenly the reason eating a big dinner makes you sleepy is because it's drugged. (Never mind that turkey doesn't have significantly more tryptophan than any other meat.) The point is, as you note, there isn't a binary distinction. The difference is in dosage— is the amount of this thing that you actually encounter in your life enough to cause noticeable effects? If not, it may as well be inert. And nutmeg is a good example: the one chemical that the article does provide dosing on, and it turns out that it's basically impossible to get an actual psychoactive effect from it. I wonder what information about the actual concentrations of these "psychoactive chemicals" would reveal?

Cushman 16y ago

I... guess we disagree? I don't see what you're reading into the article, at all. As I read it he's clearly referring to long-named, psychoactive substances with every single use of "chemical". Anyway, not much point in arguing about that. Your bringing up tryptophan is the classic example of what I'm talking about. Someone notices that turkey has tryptophan in it, tryptophan is psychoactive on paper, and suddenly the reason eating a big dinner makes you sleepy is because it's drugged. (Never mind that turkey doesn't have significantly more tryptophan than any other meat.) The point is, as you note, there isn't a binary distinction. The difference is in dosage— is the amount of this thing that you actually encounter in your life enough to cause noticeable effects? If not, it may as well be inert. And nutmeg is a good example: the one chemical that the article does provide dosing on, and it turns out that it's basically impossible to get an actual psychoactive effect from it. I wonder what information about the actual concentrations of these "psychoactive chemicals" would reveal?