Join 3,524 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Vegetal ruling
February 21, 2006 8:02 AM   Subscribe

Religious use of ayahuasca ruled lawful in U.S.
posted by xowie (79 comments total)

 
Ayahuasca is a powerfully psychedelic South American brew/tea traditionally made from the B. caapi vine and other admixtures such as P. viridis (or other DMT-containing plants). One of its primary effects is considered to be the vomiting (the purge) that accompanies the experience. The term ayahuasca is sometimes loosely used to mean any combination of an MAOI with DMT.

Isn't DMT in Robitussin? Either way, that doesn't sound like much fun
posted by delmoi at 8:08 AM on February 21, 2006


Who will found the First American Church of Jesus the Annointed One? He can be annointed with pretty much anything you like.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:08 AM on February 21, 2006


no delmoi, that's dxm (dextromethorphan)
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:08 AM on February 21, 2006


Interesting. Thanks.

One of its primary effects is considered to be the vomiting (the purge) that accompanies the experience. Eww.
posted by slimepuppy at 8:10 AM on February 21, 2006


In my opinion this position of exceptions for the religious is untenable, and is hopefully a step towards the day when all drugs are legal and regulated.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:11 AM on February 21, 2006


if dmt were in robitussin things would be real interesting
posted by wakko at 8:12 AM on February 21, 2006


if dmt were in robitussin things would be real interesting

Only if combined with an MAOI, wakko.
posted by anomie at 8:15 AM on February 21, 2006


Religious freedom is all well and nice to the Bushies, until it involves something other than fundamentalist Christianity, and especially when it involves something as scary as DRUGS! OMG that is almost as scary as COMMUNISM.
posted by caddis at 8:17 AM on February 21, 2006


Hopfully this will open the door for Rastifarians. |-)
posted by Mr_Zero at 8:19 AM on February 21, 2006


exceptions for the religious is untenable

Religion is all about exceptance.
posted by srboisvert at 8:21 AM on February 21, 2006


There was a case in Oregon that eventually made it to the Supreme Court that involved the religious use of Peyote. I believe they found that peyote could not be used on religious grounds due to some slippery slope bullshit.


Here's a link

posted by cloeburner at 8:22 AM on February 21, 2006


Oh well. If it's legal I might as well try it. So how do you prove you actually believe in whatever religion that lets you try this, from a legal standpoint? Am I just going to be able to buy it online?

Will prosecutors be able to use my old MeFi posts to prove I'm an atheist?
posted by delmoi at 8:24 AM on February 21, 2006


Roberts said that the Bush administration had not met its burden under a federal religious freedom law to show that it could ban "the sect's sincere religious practice."

So is the difference between recreational and spiritual use of a substance going to be whether it is "sincere" or not? Is the government going to start deciding whether this religious practice is "sincere?" I can't wait to see where they draw the line.
posted by anomie at 8:24 AM on February 21, 2006


That inconsistency is what you get when you try to regulate a substance endogenous to the human brain, not to mention probably hundreds of other species.

Anyways, Christian mushroom trees.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:27 AM on February 21, 2006


Seems cool to me, vomiting is associated with many strong drugs. The ingestion of the tea is supposed to sharpen your senses and bring vision/revelations and is commonly used in South/Central American shamanic activities. The amount and sound of the vomiting is a part of the process with the loudest and most vigorous vomiting being the best way. vomiting is also a part of consuming peyote. I think it makes sense on both a physiological and psychological level. I also find it an interesting case legally, as I really do think this is something that one would not want to consume recreationally, but has been a long standing religious practice among the peoples of South and Central America. Of course I would also assume that people would not want to ingest spray paint recreationally and I know that I am dead wrong there. I think that dangers of psychedelics is minimal to the advantages and we need to move out of making irrational choices about things based on fear and come out with danger scale for controlled substances based on reality. I would agree with Justice Roberts on the "zero tolerance approach" and the need to move away from such thinking. Please, a return to rationality!
posted by los pijamas del gato at 8:28 AM on February 21, 2006


Hmm, Roberts wrote the decision, and the vote was unanimous (except with Sandra Day O'Connor, not Alito voting)
posted by delmoi at 8:29 AM on February 21, 2006


>>ruled lawful in U.S.

Correction: lawful for a small denomination only. Religious people get special rights. That's wrong. I look forward to this being overturned in federal appeals. Its either all or nothing.

Want to put an age limit on it? Fine. A tax? Fine.

Race? No. Religion? No. Gender? No.
posted by skallas at 8:38 AM on February 21, 2006


The case to which cloeburner refers is Employment Division v. Smith, in which the Court concluded, in an opinion authored by Justice Scalia, that neither the Free Exercise nor Establishment Clause requires that religions be given an exception from neutral and generally applicable laws, such as the laws regarding drug use. "Slippery slope bullshit" is an inaccurate description, at best, of the reasoning in that opinion. Congress reacted to SMith in part by passing RFRA, which established exceptions from the drug laws for sacramental use under certain conditions. This case was an application of RFRA.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:39 AM on February 21, 2006


I'm a little confused. Isn't DMT itself an MAOI? At least, my lore from the 70's suggests that "DMT" would be "5-methyloxy-DMT", which was described as a monamine oxadaise inhibitor, and therefore, unsafe with cheddar cheese (?) and certain drugs.

The DMT of 70's drug lore was described as an intense hallucinogenic experience of short duration, with a lovely mellow after life (like the day after an acid trip). It was smoked, according to the book I read.

Of course my 70's sources are questionable (weren't they all, back then?) as well as my ability to remember. My question is pretty much academic, as I consider myself too old for more than thinking about such psychonautics.
posted by Goofyy at 8:40 AM on February 21, 2006


"Released on bail, Burroughs left Mexico and traveled in South America looking for a drug called yage. His letters to Ginsberg describing his experiences in the cities, jungles, and mountains of Ecuador and Peru were collected in his volume later published by City Lights as The Yage Letters (1963), which Burroughs thought would interest readers after the success of Aldous Huxley's The Doors of Perception in 1954."
posted by nickyskye at 8:41 AM on February 21, 2006


if dmt were in robitussin things would be real interesting

Only if combined with an MAOI, wakko.



As in, Maoi Waoi?
posted by darkstar at 8:42 AM on February 21, 2006


I'll puke to that!
posted by Balisong at 8:45 AM on February 21, 2006


I see, Monju Bosatsu. Sorry, I was just splurting out some vague memory from a distant past.

Although I did link to an analysis of the case. And I just now read some info about congress passing RFRA which probably paved the way for this ruling.
posted by cloeburner at 8:47 AM on February 21, 2006


The opinion is now available [pdf].
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:49 AM on February 21, 2006


Goofyy.

DMT is inactive when taken orally except when also taken with an MAOI. The Ayahuasca tea has both, naturally.

You are basically right about what the smoked version is like. I've never used it, but I did bump into somebody at a rave who had just 'come down' from it, and he described it basically that way. He was amazingly coherent for someone who literally 10 minutes before was basically completely out of his head.
posted by empath at 8:50 AM on February 21, 2006


>This case was an application of RFRA.

RFRA is constitutiona again? It was struck down in 1997. There is no RFRA anymore, its an obvious unconstituional law.
But earlier today, the Supreme Court defended for the Establishment Clause, and struck down the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act which had been signed into law by President Clinton, and enjoyed near-unanimous backing from America's religious groups. The 6-3 decision was more pronounced that Monday's 5-4 split, and found Justices John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia joining with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist for the majority. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Stephen Breyer dissented.
Another source here.

So much for Clinton was a liberal or respected church/state seperation issues.
posted by skallas at 8:51 AM on February 21, 2006


Old ayahuasca account by old anarchist PLW.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:52 AM on February 21, 2006


NPR story about Ayahuasca from last year.

"We then take three fingers of the stuff, and sit quietly. Norma then begins to sing. After twenty minutes, my friend starts to vomit profusely. Suddenly, although it must be 80 degrees, I am shivering, violently... I start to weep."

I think more Ayahuasca use by NPR should be encouraged.
posted by mammary16 at 8:54 AM on February 21, 2006


See what you're missing out on, atheists? Believers get drugs at the party!

(As a minister in the Universal Life Church, anyone know where I can score some ayahuasca?)
posted by klangklangston at 8:56 AM on February 21, 2006


skallas, you misunderstand why RFRA was held unconstitutional. The Court held RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states because it exceeded Congress' power under ยง 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. RFRA, however, still binds the federal government, and it is that application at issue in this case.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:01 AM on February 21, 2006


MAOIs, which includes some of the older anti-depressants, are very dangerous. Combining them with certain foods can cause extremely high blood pressure and they can be especially dangerous when combined with other anti-depressants such as SSRIs.
posted by mike3k at 9:02 AM on February 21, 2006


As a further note, the reason why MAOIs are dangerous is that they eliminate the blood/brain barrier, allowing larger molecules to interact with the brain. That includes all sorts of things, from bacterias in foods to poisons in cigarettes, which would normally be screened out. They aren't something to fool with.
posted by klangklangston at 9:05 AM on February 21, 2006


I have no problem with religions being entitled to their various sacraments. However, now the question becomes a matter of "What is a valid religious use?" and "What is a valid religion?" Psychedelics are an interesting case, because users tend to report religious experiences regardless of whether or not they, themselves, have a religion.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:09 AM on February 21, 2006


"vomiting is also a part of consuming peyote."

DID YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THAT CHICKEN?

*hurl*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:23 AM on February 21, 2006


You'd have been nice if Timothy Leary had lived to laugh at this one. As for you all saying religions shouldn't have special privileges, get tactical people, get tactical. The Great Spaghetti Monster is great to laugh ID out of educated conversation. So if my dear friends (this group developed originally in the Brazilian rain forest then spread to the whole country and now, apparently, to the world) of the Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal* give us a lever against the fanatical drug warriors, so be it. Let us all become "Seventh Day Vegetalists" or "Later Day Vegetalists" or "Jedi Vegetalists".

* Beneficent Spirit Center Union of the Vegetable
posted by nkyad at 9:52 AM on February 21, 2006


Terence Mckennas skeleton is probably smiling a little more now.
posted by 6am at 10:09 AM on February 21, 2006


Hurl Chunks for Christ
posted by Goofyy at 10:41 AM on February 21, 2006


MetaFilter: One of its primary effects is considered to be the vomiting that accompanies the experience.
posted by rocket88 at 10:51 AM on February 21, 2006


The Bush administration had argued that the drug in the tea not only violates a federal narcotics law, but a treaty in which the United States promised to block the importation of drugs including dimethyltryptamine, also known as DMT.

Yes, I too am worried about the coming DMT epidemic.
posted by iamck at 11:11 AM on February 21, 2006


I can see it now...

But officer, I'm 1/85th Amazonian tribesman! This is the sacrament of my people! Help! I'm being OPRESSED!
posted by Parannoyed at 11:12 AM on February 21, 2006


You mean like everyone in Brasil?
posted by iamck at 11:16 AM on February 21, 2006


Anomie- Sincere use of substance in a religious context is a tricky metric. Should it become the standard, does anyone feel that an individual would be able to sincerely ingest a prohibited substance with spiritual intent outside of a codified religious context? Or must a larger organization promote the activity before it is "sincere." If so, when is the first meeting?
posted by bastionofsanity at 11:16 AM on February 21, 2006


Isn't the real issue the "interstate commerce" interpretation that gives the federal government authority over intrastate non-commerce?
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:19 AM on February 21, 2006


Indeed. Every experience of my life is spirtual, including those when I'm consuming illegal substances.
posted by iamck at 11:20 AM on February 21, 2006


A sacrament is whatever you choose. Even a glass of water may be such, or a glass of wine. Or a bit of simple bread. Special plants are sacred. If I wasn't lazy, I'd put a link to each, as each is from a main stream religion. So what if Group X hallows plant Q. Group Y hallows plant T.

My teacher taught me to respect substances that alter my mind, that by doing so, they could do good things for me beyond simply having a good time.
posted by Goofyy at 11:52 AM on February 21, 2006


Sincere use of substance in a religious context is a tricky metric.

Exactly. And I would wager that anyone would be quite sincere after a couple cups of Ayahuasca, regardless of their original intent.

If so, when is the first meeting?

The first meeting of the Iowa Bokononists is next week. Too bad you left!
posted by anomie at 11:59 AM on February 21, 2006


anomie : "And I would wager that anyone would be quite sincere after a couple cups of Ayahuasca, regardless of their original intent."

Hoasca isn't a very consonant experience.
posted by Gyan at 12:08 PM on February 21, 2006


Hoasca isn't a very consonant experience.

True, and I have not experienced the substance myself. However, in reading the experiences of others, one common message seems to be that the experience demands the respect of the user. I believe it is fair to say that an insincere user looking to "get high" will probably be in for more than they bargained for.
posted by anomie at 12:30 PM on February 21, 2006


Did you know that Ayahuasca is 100% legal, for anyone, in Brazil?
posted by telstar at 12:54 PM on February 21, 2006


monju_bosatsu: thanks for the interesting link about the case. The opinion is an interesting treatment of the topic. There are several ways the Court could have tackled this but I guess the points on appeal drove to that opinion.

But, I guess the legal points aren't what people want to talk about. It looks like another drug-related topic is lost to the "drugs are good" crowd. (As a related matter: is my assumption correct that most of the "legalize drugs" crowd are pot smokers or rave/acid kind of people? I don't get the feeling that the loud "legalize drugs, man!" crowd counts too many meth addicts or crackheads in their midst. Would that be a bad assumption?)
posted by dios at 1:08 PM on February 21, 2006


I would say that is a good assumption.

I have known a lot of meth addicts, since the meth epidemic was a real problem in my area for about 5-10 years before it got much attention anywhere else in the country.

Now all my hick friends have gotten clean and the heavy usage has moved downtown to the gay population.

(the stuff you hear about 66% of meth addicts never quit is BS. I would say only about 10-20% are still into that bad world.)

Most meth addicts can't get it together enough to care about the legality of anything. Most of these people would lie to your face and steal from you if they were on meth, but never otherwise.

But meth cooks don't have any property to seize and (coincidently enough) don't get anywhere near the proportionate attention from law enforcement that other, more incentivizing drugs do.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:20 PM on February 21, 2006


Crack could never be legalized! ( Where would the death squads get their money? )
posted by telstar at 1:21 PM on February 21, 2006


When I was growing up, we drank the literal blood of Christ. This shit is weak comparatively.
posted by Falconetti at 1:22 PM on February 21, 2006



But, I guess the legal points aren't what people want to talk about.

Instead of lamenting about the lack of legal discussion in this thread, why not post your thoughts on the legal implications of this decision? I would be very interested to hear the opinion of a non-layperson as to the effects of this decision on the legal status of intoxicants in the "religious" or even non-religious setting.

Seriously, what do you think about this decision dios?
posted by anomie at 1:28 PM on February 21, 2006


Yeah, it seems kind of weird. Are there any other cases where religions get special exemption for activities that would otherwise be criminal?
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:29 PM on February 21, 2006


dios : "As a related matter: is my assumption correct that most of the 'legalize drugs' crowd are pot smokers or rave/acid kind of people? I don't get the feeling that the loud 'legalize drugs, man!' crowd counts too many meth addicts or crackheads in their midst. Would that be a bad assumption?"

I think the bad assumption is that, at this point, most of the 'legalize drugs' crowd are pot smokers or rave/acid kind of people. Unless you want to accuse the Economist, the Cato Institute and a lot of other respectable press organs and think-tanks of being run by "pot smokers or rave/acid kind of people". The bad economic consequences of the prohibition are more and more clear, the racist/classist bias of its enforcement has been clear for a long time and there is now a large group of people trying to discuss the rational way out, a way that minimizes the public health impact and help bring a whole lot of people "left behind" in ghettos and prisons back into society.

As for the rest of your assumption, it is very obvious to anyone that hard drugs are very bad for your physical and mental health. Very few heavy meth users will participate in any debate whatsoever. I don't think you will find heavy crack users and opium addicts in that crowd too. But them again you won't see many terminal alcoholics giving their opinion on the matter too.
posted by nkyad at 1:35 PM on February 21, 2006


sonofsamiam : "Are there any other cases where religions get special exemption for activities that would otherwise be criminal?"

Have you tried drinking someone's blood in public lately?
posted by nkyad at 1:37 PM on February 21, 2006


I imagine that "miraculously produced" blood is not illegal to imbibe.

In fact, I doubt drinking blood is illegal at all, as long as there is no victim. There are "vampire clubs" that do this and I've never heard of a raid on one.

Transubstantiated blood is also probably less likely to give you hepatitis or AIDS, so... drink up!
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:42 PM on February 21, 2006


is my assumption correct that most of the "legalize drugs" crowd are pot smokers or rave/acid kind of people?

Perhaps most, but certainly not all. I favor decriminalization and regulation of most drugs but am not a user. I guess I fall into that CATO category. We waste far too many resources warehousing drug users and pushers.
posted by caddis at 1:43 PM on February 21, 2006


Your point is well taken dios. The legal aspects of the case and its implications for religious freedom are the only interesting thing here. If any stoners think this decision will make it any easier for them to score drugs they are mistaken, unless they are members of the vegetal sect.
posted by caddis at 1:48 PM on February 21, 2006


is my assumption correct that most of the "legalize drugs" crowd are pot smokers or rave/acid kind of people?

Most of the "people in America" crowd is pot smokers, period.
posted by iamck at 2:11 PM on February 21, 2006


caddis : "If any stoners think this decision will make it any easier for them to score drugs "

Come again.
posted by Gyan at 2:13 PM on February 21, 2006


Most of the "people in America" crowd is pot smokers, period.

Which America do you live in?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:14 PM on February 21, 2006


caddis : "If any stoners think this decision will make it any easier for them to score drugs they are mistaken, unless they are members of the vegetal sect."

But, as someone noticed (jokingly, I suppose) above, if a small sect arising from the tropical forest very heart can obtain legal status for their sacred plant, why wouldn't a much larger religion deserve the same treatment?
posted by nkyad at 2:26 PM on February 21, 2006


But, as someone noticed (jokingly, I suppose) above, if a small sect arising from the tropical forest very heart can obtain legal status for their sacred plant, why wouldn't a much larger religion deserve the same treatment?

/insane blather
Maybe you didn't notice the skin color of the majority of adherents? Didn't you see Reefer Madness? You want white women taking off their clothes and making the beast with two backs with colored boys? Do you? Cause, that's what will happen if you let people smoke the devil weed.
/insane blather

Hey, that explanation makes as much sense as any "reason" they keep giving for making smoking an herb a federal crime.
posted by dejah420 at 2:34 PM on February 21, 2006


aho!
posted by moonbird at 3:43 PM on February 21, 2006


While this still only represents a tiny crumble in the wall.... this is still great news!!!

I did DMT (in ayahuasca tea form) about 2-3 years ago, here in Seattle. Greatest damn night of my life.... *sigh*. I know people say this about many drugs, but holy cow- that stuff was fantastic! I don't mean in flashing lights, woo-woo way, but in the "I felt really at peace and happy not only during but for several days after" kind of way. It had a lingering psychological effect on me, and for a while I didn't care about my heavyset frame, or my social life, or my existential angst, because on a profound level I was very happy and content. I knew I had the power and motivation to change what I was unhappy about, that I could lose weight or change jobs or be more outgoing so easily, just flick the switch to unlock the happy person that was in side. I felt suffused with a sense that I was a loved and loveable person, that I forgave myself for being my own worst enemy because I still had much life to live and much happiness to feel.

Sadly, I haven't been able to try it again, and have fallen back into my old ruts of misery and depression. But man... that stuff was fantastic. Better than any therapy, better than any SSRI shit from GloboChemCorp. For a time, it visible improved my life and sense of well-being, but I haven't been able to find any since (there's still too few people who really know about it).
posted by hincandenza at 6:22 PM on February 21, 2006


hincandenza did DMT...well, at least now I understand Infinite Jest.

/on a side note, and not to *gasp* encourage drug use, but I'm off in a month down to the Sonoran desert in Arizona where the frogs secrete DMT...
posted by iamck at 7:49 PM on February 21, 2006


iamck : "where the frogs secrete DMT"

More 5-MeO-DMT than (N,N-)DMT.
posted by Gyan at 8:32 PM on February 21, 2006


Somewhere in Arizona. Driving down road,see Colorado River toad, pick up toad,agitate toad,toad pisses,place toad on palm,rub toad on windshield,drive to destination,scrape windshield with razor blade,smoke reside, inhale deeply,exhale,higher than you have ever been in your life. thank toad. compact version of a beautiful and complex story.
posted by hortense at 9:01 PM on February 21, 2006


Gyan, thanks for the clarification...
posted by iamck at 9:42 PM on February 21, 2006


Dios- you do have have a point. The legal implications are the most salient point of this thread. An individual's right to self-determine their body's state is, in my opinion, very important. Whether this must be done with the blessings of some larger societal organization is what I was commenting on. Which organizations and which substances will be sanctioned? Who will be determining what is a "sincere" religious experience? Is an individual legally able to determine what constitutes a valid belief system?
And for all the pot heads, acid casualty, junkies out there... have you considered where all the money saved by ceasing the War on Drugs? If you want ot convince Those in Power to leave you alone, remind them how many cruise missiles they could buy with that money instead. It will work.
posted by bastionofsanity at 7:19 AM on February 22, 2006


The War on Drugs doesn't cost money. It makes money.

The departments responsible for enforcement and the prison industry get buckets of taxpayer money.

Plus, court fees and fines (which can vary wildly depending on the area one gets arrested in, 500% difference sometimes for the same infraction.)

Add in forfeiture laws, which allow the police to seize any amount over some mumble thousands of dollars, and the police department gets to keep 10% for funding further operations.

Only insofar as the Defense deparment-conglomerate vies for funds with the domestic enforcement agencies (and their ssociated industries) will any appeal based on cost work. Since the Defense department got .75 trillion last year, they aren't hurting for funds.

The War on Drugs doesn't cost them. It costs you, and probably mostly people much poorer than you.

All this without even dipping our toe in the incredibly complex and tinfoil-wallpapered world of (possible!) crack and heroin dealing by agents, or the indpendent actor dealing that is actively promoted, like the Contras.

The more you look into it, the crookeder it gets.
posted by sonofsamiam at 7:38 AM on February 22, 2006


I postulated to a coworker once, and I still like the idea, that all the current revenue streams (except prisons) generated by the War on Drugs could be replaced and augmented by Taxes on Drugs. Make tax stamp evasion a stiff fine and funnel that money to prisons, if you like. I just think that more could be made through taxation. And if using the leftovers for bombs is not something you think we could sell, maybe use it to fund educational programs and health care?
The War on Drugs is crooked. Prohibition makes the financial rewards > the legal risk.
posted by bastionofsanity at 1:04 PM on February 22, 2006


sonofsamiam, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect here about revenue. Funding the so called war on drugs does not make money, it takes money. The government makes money through taxes and spends it through programs. The so called war on drugs is a set of programs which suck huge amounts of money out of the government coffers. Taxes on drugs would be revenue to the government, although I see the decriminalization of drugs as revenue neutral from a tax perspective as ideally the money gained would be spent on drug treatment programs. The benefit of not spending as much on enforcement and incarceration would be huge. I do agree though that there could be a net loss of jobs, especially good jobs, as the mere distribution of the drugs is likely to be far more efficient than the policing of the drugs. Of course, those resources could be repurposed to the so called war of on terror.
posted by caddis at 2:13 PM on February 22, 2006


I'd like to comment on a couple of things mentioned here.

klangklangston, I'm intrigued where the MAOI affects blood-brain barrier ideas come from as I understood it was actually a physical membrane that sorts mainly on molecular size and shape and lipid solubility. Is there anything inherent in the MAOI action that causes this to change or is it more a side effect of certain MAOIs? I was unable to find anything on google.

Re: the toads, the active component is believed to be bufotenine. 5-MeO-DMT is also present, and yes it acts as a MAOI, but it also requires the presence of one already acting in the body to be orally active. ie. 5-MeO-DMT is metabolised before doing anything if swallowed. Smoking toads would be a whole different kettle of fish however.
posted by 999 at 4:16 PM on February 22, 2006


Y'know, 999 (HOMOCIDE!), I think you're right. I think that I was distributing bad information based on usenet readings. From doing a little bit more work on looking it up, the reason why MAOIs work and why they can be dangerous is that they inhibit the metabolization of proteins that can then affect brain chemistry. While I had heard this attributed to differences in the blood brain barrier before, I'd like to retract that as I can't find evidence to back it up.
posted by klangklangston at 4:47 PM on February 22, 2006


In other news...
posted by homunculus at 5:15 PM on February 23, 2006


The Supreme Court's Unanimous Decision Recognizing a Religious Right to Use Hallucinogenic Tea
posted by homunculus at 1:21 PM on February 27, 2006


« Older OSX has a security bug that can be triggered simpl...  |  We have all seen lots of YouTu... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments