Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 214 posts

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#81

Post by Nursie »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #42
TomMarius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which western country is that? AFAIK even most islamist states allow alcohol for non-muslims.

Australia: To use a still of any capacity to distil alcohol such as spirits, you must have an excise manufacturer licence. Severe penalties apply for manufacturing spirits without an excise manufacturer licence. [1] Although, in practice, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a case of someone being fined for making spirits at home, and you’d probably have to repeatedly offend that particular law in order to be sentenced to…

Distillation on home premises without proper safety procedures is a recipe for explosions and for contaminated/weird distillation products.

I'm a home-brewer, and have cold-distilled a couple of things (you can get up to about 22% that way IIRC), but I'm good with it being a little difficult to get started distilling, from a safety standpoint.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#82

Post by rv-de »

colechristensen wrote: post #49
mikeg8 wrote: post #5

> "It's unfeasible and way too expensive to extract psilocybin from magic mushrooms and the best chemical synthesis methods require expensive and difficult to source starting substrates...” This is one of those situations where I feel like we (humans) are approaching it all wrong. Why over complicate it by trying to “extract” the psilocybin instead of treating it like marijuana and growing the mushrooms in highly con…

There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin. Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose. Argument fallacies: * your anecdotal positive experiences * suggesting superiority because something is "from nature" * referring to "mistakes from the past" without naming any * suggesting superiority that "has been (…

> There are negative side effects from consuming the mushrooms which you don't get from purified psilocybin.

> referring to ["mistakes from the past"] without naming any

You just did the same, didn't you?

> Dosage is important. There isn't a way to test for potency which would ensure a reliable dose.

Of course there is. You just have to mix the mushrooms well and then measure potency of a sample.

That's equivalent to how drugs are produced by the way. They produce the drug and then mix it with something inert fx.

> your anecdotal positive experiences

He transparently identifies his a.p.ex. as such. Then it's not a fallacy ... It's an experience. And I like to read about those and do not appreciate condescending replies like yours OTOH.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#83

Post by svara »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #79
svara wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standardized total extracts of natural sources are pretty standard in the pharmacopeia, so what you're saying makes total sense. Making sure that the dosage is standardized is a solved problem. Unfortunately this type of drug preparation is not that fashionable. One example of this is the total extract of St. John's Wort, which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases, but doctors often prefer to prescr…

> St. John's Wort, which is superior to synthetic antidepressants in many cases, Oh boy, yet another claim without references.

"Several studies support the therapeutic benefit of St. John's wort in treating mild to moderate depression. In fact, some research has shown the supplement to be as effective as several prescription antidepressants."

(https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-st-johns-wort/a...)

Synthetic antidepressants are by no means completely benign drugs, so having something that can be as effective for mild to moderate depression with a different side effect profile is really useful.

Since you could easily have found this and many more sources, including all of the original studies, with a few Google searches, I'm taking your comment as further evidence of an irrational bias against phytopharmaceuticals.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#85

Post by rv-de »

jokowueu wrote: post #40
mikeg8 wrote: post #5

> "It's unfeasible and way too expensive to extract psilocybin from magic mushrooms and the best chemical synthesis methods require expensive and difficult to source starting substrates...” This is one of those situations where I feel like we (humans) are approaching it all wrong. Why over complicate it by trying to “extract” the psilocybin instead of treating it like marijuana and growing the mushrooms in highly con…

How about we don't do that either . Psilocybin doesn't have any effect on the human body afaik before breaking down to psilocin . 4-aco-dmt is easy to make and readily breaks down to psilocin . Why are trials and research concentrating on this prodrug like it's necessary is beyond my understanding . It's a waste of money and time

(Mu)Shrooms contain more more psychoactive substances and prodrugs to such than psilocybin. There is a reason why psychonauts debate differences between trips induced by Shrooms vs 4-Aco-DMT. But of course it would make sense to simplify the approach by starting with synthetic prodrugs.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#86

Post by pmoriarty »

Nursie wrote: post #81
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia: To use a still of any capacity to distil alcohol such as spirits, you must have an excise manufacturer licence. Severe penalties apply for manufacturing spirits without an excise manufacturer licence. [1] Although, in practice, I can’t say I’ve ever heard of a case of someone being fined for making spirits at home, and you’d probably have to repeatedly offend that particular law in order to be sentenced to…

Distillation on home premises without proper safety procedures is a recipe for explosions and for contaminated/weird distillation products. I'm a home-brewer, and have cold-distilled a couple of things (you can get up to about 22% that way IIRC), but I'm good with it being a little difficult to get started distilling, from a safety standpoint.

"I'm good with it being a little difficult to get started distilling, from a safety standpoint."

If you screw up home canning, you can get botulism, which can very easily kill you and anyone else who consumes it. Same if you simply store some home-made garlic olive oil in your refrigerator.

Cook beans wrong and you could get very sick or even die. Cooking on a gas stove could result in your house catching on fire, or at least you could severely burn yourself or someone else.

Use power tools wrong and you could get maimed or killed, or maim or kill someone else.

Climb a ladder or walk in to a shower and you can fall and die.

Riding a bike wrong could result in yourself or others getting killed.

Yet few would argue that any of these things be made illegal to be done by amateurs at home because of the risks they pose and the fact that people have killed themselves or others doing them.

Why should making alcohol or any other drug be any different?

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#87

Post by M2Ys4U »

ccsalvesen wrote: post #65
TomMarius wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, I forgot about Norway. I have a (Czech) friend there, they have to pull down the sunblinds when they want to drink a beer. Seems insane to me, also a Czech guy.

As a Norwegian I can tell you that your friend is pulling your leg. You are free to drink on private property. I have never heard about anyone being arrested for responsible drinking in public parks, beaches and places like that. It's not allowed to serve people that is "visibly intoxicated" but almost no one cares. At a normal Friday and Saturday night, Oslo is a battlefield of shitfaced people.

>It's not allowed to serve people that is "visibly intoxicated" but almost no one cares. At a normal Friday and Saturday night, Oslo is a battlefield of shitfaced people.

Strictly speaking the same is true in the UK, but lol.

Section 141 of the Licensing Act 2003:

"(1) A person [...] commits an offence if, on relevant premises, he knowingly—

(a) sells or attempts to sell alcohol to a person who is drunk, or

(b) allows alcohol to be sold to such a person.

[...]

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."

Where "level 3 on the standard scale" is £1,000.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#88

Post by TomMarius »

dejv wrote: post #76
TomMarius wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that because of taxation? It is that way in Czechia as well, purely because of that; it is OK to make spirits at home though (up to some - albeit pretty large - amount).

Sorry but it is not allowed to make spirits at home in Czech Republic. You can use certified distillery to make spirit from home grown fruit and pay taxes (although not as much as for commercial alcohol). This spirit is used for personal use only and could not be sold.

> This spirit is used for personal use only and could not be sold.

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry I wasn't clear.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#89

Post by thegabriele »

samanator wrote: post #67
thegabriele wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair you pointed out but with no implied criticism, those are the exact arguments one should expect from a psilocybin user.

Why is that? Do you think they are less sensical than non-users? Or are you implying that the author was under the influence at the time of writing?

None of the two, psychedelics are known for the spiritual/naturism effects so no wonder users advocate for a "down to earth" approach. Seems to me that you wouldn't get a similar response from a meth user.

Re: Psilocybin Produced in Yeast

#90

Post by thegabriele »

throwaway6575 wrote: post #80
samanator wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that? Do you think they are less sensical than non-users? Or are you implying that the author was under the influence at the time of writing?

I think that was just a free dunk on drug users. Sorry for being uncharitable here.

Sorry for being too dry, i elaborated a little bit under the parent comment. I have no interest in dunking anyone
Post reply on HN