HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/drugs/faq-san-pedro

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 9.2 KB

From: [e-mail] (Steve Barton)
Date: 21 Sep 1994 02:07:01 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,alt.psychedelics
Subject: San Pedro potency FAQ ver. 1.1

Ver 1.1 of a FAQ on this persistent topic.  co-author credit is
due to RBrennan for his indespensable research & tireless intellectual
exchanges with me as we gather data and clarify our thinking on "the
San Pedro Question."

                -steve

Q: What is the name of the legal mescaline-containing cactus?
A: Most commonly, you are referring to Trichocereus pachanoi,
    aka "San Pedro".  Various other Trichocerei have been
    shown to contain mescaline, however, and there have been
    been informal reports of usage of T. peruvianus and what we
    suspect is T. macrogonus as well.  T. pachanoi is employed
    as a grafting stock, landscape plant, ornamental accent, and
    (in South America) as hedging and fencing.  It has wonderful
    9" night-blooming flowers, in season.  It is amenable to
    pot-culture (i.e., growing it in a clay pot on your patio).
    It is legal to own, but illegal to consume or process into
    mescaline.

Q: How strong is it?
A: That depends on "which pachanoi".  It is highly variable.

Q: Isn't T. pachanoi weaker than peyote?
A: That depends on "which pachanoi" you are talking about.  Reports
    published in scholarly journals have shown pachanoi to sometimes
    be twice as strong as peyote.  In addition, T. pachanoi grows
    a few orders of magnitude faster than peyote; pachanoi can
    double in mass every year, while peyote takes about a decade to
    grow to flowering size.  T. pachanoi branches can grow to 18'
    by 4" dia, while natural peyote tops out at about
    2" high by 4" dia.  T. pachanoi is certainly a formidable
    mescaline producer and has three millenia of human usage.
    "Weak" is really an unfair word to apply to either plant.

    In addition, peyote is illegal to posess (lacking religious
    exemption) and is becoming endangered in nature; hence it
    is harder to find, while T. pachanoi often turns up at the
    local nursery, etc.  How strong *is* the cactus you can't
    get?

Q: I thought that it was some other Trichocereus that is as strong
    as peyote.
A: There is a UL that peruvianus is "10x as strong as pachanoi".
    Again, the response to this is "which pachanoi?"
    Here is a table of some of the primary citations on
    Trichocereus potency that should make it clearer:

species        %age fresh    %age dry        citation

peyote        ?        1-6% (rarely >1%)    XXX
pachanoi    0.12%        2%             CF
peruvianus    0.05%*        0.82%            P&M
peruvianus    >0.0005%    >0.01%*            Ag
pachanoi    0.02%*        0.331%            C&M
pachanoi    0.02%*        0.357%            T&H
pachanoi    0.006%*-0.14%*    0.1-2.375%        H&B

* estimated, calculated assuming constant 94% water in fresh material.
  provided simply for convenience in comparing different studies.
  *most* give figures only based on dry material, while Ag gives only
  fresh.

Ag: Agurell, S. 1969 "Cactaceae Alkaloids.  I."  Lloydia 32:206-216
    Found no detectable mescaline at all in T. peruvianus.
CF: Friedberg, Claudine.  1959 "Rapport sur une mission au
    Perou..." Travaux de l'Institut Francais d'Etudes Andines
    AFAIK, this is the earliest measurement of M content in
    pachanoi.
C&M: Crosby & McLaughin 1973 "Cactus Alkaloids XIX.  Crystallization
    of mescaline HCl and 3-MEOtyramine HCl from T.  pachanoi"
    Lloydia 36:416
H&B: Helmlin HJ & Brenneisen R,  J Chromatogr 1992 Feb 28; 593 (1-2): 87-94
    Samples of T. pachanoi were taken from private collections,
    shopping malls & florist's shops.
P&M: Pardanani & McLaughlin.  1977.  "Cactus Alkaloids.  XXVI.
    Mescaline and Related Compounds from Trichocereus peruvianus"
    Lloydia Vol 40 #6.  This seems to be the sole primary cite
    on which all claims of peruvianus potency is based.
T&H: Turner & Heyman 1960 (cite by C&M) "the presence of
    mescaline in Opuntia cylindrica (sic)" J. Org. Chem. 25: 2250
XXX: cited by C&M, these figures are widely quoted but I have
    not examined C&M's primary sources for them.

A (cont.): as you can see, pachanoi varies by 20X.  This is not
    likely to be experimental error; H&B using consistent
    methodology came up with figures that nicely bracket all other
    citations.  The strongest pachanoi measured is 3X the
    strongest peruvianus measured, and while it is less than
    half the strength of the strongest peyote on record it is
    more than twice the strength of peyote you are likely to
    get your hands on.  The strongest T. peruvianus reported is
    not quite as powerful as the "usual" peyote.

Q: But maybe there was an even more powerful T. peruvianus that was
    never tested?

A: Likely, studies of other trichos similar to H&B would also show a
    variance.  How great a variance, and what its top value would
    be is unknown to the scientific literature.  It is possible
    that the failure to find mescaline in peruvianus reported in
    Ag is nothing more than the lower-bound.

    There is reason to think that other trichos than pachanoi have
    at times been identified by anthropological informants as
    "San Pedro", but whether this means that they are
    pharmacologically as-or-more active is not known at this time.

    If you have such a T. peruvianus and can do respectable
    quantitative chemistry, why not send a note to Lloydia?  TIA.

Q: There was this cactus in a park in a city which I won't name
    and I know for a fact that it was 5x as strong as pachanoi.
A: Stronger than which pachanoi?
Q: Aren't I supposed to be the one asking the questions?
A: You're raising them & I'm clarifying them.

Q: What makes one pachanoi stronger than another?
A: This is an open question.  There is lore within the entheogenic
    cactophile community that there is both seasonal variation
    and variance due to plant culture, but no proper scientific
    studies have been done.  There is also a legend of a "purple
    pachanoi" that was reputed to be very powerful.  Turning
    purple is also a symptom of phototoxicity (over-exposure
    to sun).  Shoots from old clumps are held to be stronger by
    some, as are branches with 4 ridges (rare to non-existent in
    pachanoi), and those grown in mineral-rich soil in the Andes.
    It is possible that different genetic strains of pachanoi
    have different potential.  Much of the pachanoi available
    is thought to be clonally propagated from one or a very few
    genetic lines and probably selected for its utility as a
    grafting stock, although "different individuals" do turn up
    from time-to-time.

    If the cactophile community showed the same dilligence and
    resourcefulness as have the cannabis-cultivators we would be
    able to answer your question with certainty (although I
    certainly do not envy the degree of legal and illegal attention
    the multi-$G cannabis industry has attracted).

Q: This dude sold me some San Pedro.  Do I have the strong kind or
    the weak kind?
A: Neither you nor I have any idea.  Probably neither does the dude.
    There are some suppliers with a track-record of selling
    "effective" San Pedro.  If you are risk-averse, see if you can
    find someone who has been in business for some time and ask
    their other customers.

Q: How do I find the really, really strong kind?
A: When you find some, email me for my snail address and send me
    a cutting so I can add it to my collection.

Q: I'm sitting here with a cactus cutting in my hand, intending to
    commit felonious cactophagy, and I am about to add aggravated
    weenie-cide unless you can give me a straight answer on how
    much of this cactus in my hand should I eat?
A: The "maximum safe dose" of mescaline, according to Ott, is 1000 mg.
    Assume the worst (best) about your cactus, that it is H&B's
    2.375% (dry), the most powerful pachanoi known to science.
    You would therefore not want to take more than 714 gms (fresh),
    or about 1 1/2 lbs.  The threshold dose is about 150 mg, so
    you'd need at least 107 gms (nearly 4 oz.) to get any
    effect in the best (worst) case.  If you got the wimpy stuff
    you will need to eat at least 2.5kg to get the least effect.
    To get the maximum safe dose from the wimpy stuff you need
    to eat ~17kg; probably about one-fifth your own body weight.

Q: I got the wimpy stuff, now what do I do?
A: Let the rest of it callous off, root it out, plant it, and join
    the rest of us in discovering what this organism wants from
    life.  It may or may not be weak because of lack of genetic
    potential; nobody really knows.  This is not Safeway, this
    is a living organism we are approaching and attempting to
    enlist.  Negotiations may be in order.  If nothing else,
    the flowers are gorgeous.  Join your local cactus society,
    or a net mailing-list and expand your horizons.

    I've yet to try the wimpy stuff, BTW, although as a plant-
    collector I buy many more specimens than will ever make it
    into my kitchen; there might be some wimpy ones in my
    back-yard unbeknownst to me.  But perhaps it is not very
    common; only representing very unhappy plants that have
    been living in a shopping-mall or similar unnatural locale.
    400 gms of any I've tried seems like an "entheogenic all-day
    lollipop" to me.

    If I could get 1000 pachanoi branches blooming in my
    garden I'd be a *very* happy gardener, regardless of
    their alkaloidal content.

Q: Maybe there's some super-secret powerful tricho that nobody talks
    about.
A: That would be Trichocereus bum-fumble you are referring to, but
    if the alt.drug.elders discovered that you knew anything
    about its existence they would send their hit squads by and...

    Excuse me, there's someone pounding at the door^D