Ayahuasca in LA Times

I buy your first reason wholesale. Folks ain't going far. Or fast.

Second reason, meh...many recreational drugs have ghastly unpleasant side effects or dosing methods. It's a subjective thing and trainable, what we'll put up with, no? Puke or stick a needle in your arm, which is more unpleasant?

Third reason, I'll buy that too, with comment. I see the free press pass for Ayahuasca as a good thing, because that free ride might hook other stuff along with it. If A is acceptable, then its equivalent B, previously assumed to be completely unacceptable, might make progress back towards OK. The longer it stays a press virgin, the better all around.

The spiritual crowd also tends to be older, quieter, and less likely to post abominable videos of themselves on youtube. They make idiots of themselves in private ways!

Magicbean wrote: "I doubt there's anything intrinsic in the drug that's keeping the reputation so good..."

I've thought about this a bit and have come to a couple of conclusions. First of all, the inclusion of harmine and harmaline in the brew makes the user sleepy and prone to lying down and having waking dreams instead of dancing all night and/or running naked out into traffic; it's more "gentle" and predictable which makes it more savory to academics and advocates. Secondly, the fact that it tastes like pig's bile and makes you puke like a fire-hose makes it fairly immune to recreational abuse, thus strengthening its "good medicine" mystique. Thirdly, because it has been adopted into traditional and syncretic religious ceremonies and the Supreme Court can't touch it, advocates love to fawn all over it as the most "spiritual" psychedelic, and we all know that in drug code "spiritual" = "good". And finally, no one has dosed on ayahuasca and jumped out of a window and/or accidentally murdered someone yet (though you all know it is probably coming one of these days). Until that day the brew gets a free ride from the press.

This">[link] guy had much more interesting and insightful stuff to say about the mainstreaming of ayahuasca.

Pinchbeck has about the same stratospheric odiousness level as GWB as far as I'm concerned, and I'm hoping to see some other name get out there as the go-to for mainstream reporters on the subject of psychedelics and especially ayahuasca. Unfortunately, no one's as tied in to the mechanics of marketing oneself quite like he is. Grrrr.

Ayahuasca does have a golden reputation in the press, but that is easy to ruin. What has kept that reputation solid for the most part is how it's used now - in a circle, with at least a modicum of introspection, and usually someone with a decent amount of experience steering the boat. I doubt there's anything intrinsic in the drug that's keeping the reputation so good (although I'm open to convincing on this).

The question isn't "Will ayahuasca become mainstream", it's more "Can we keep cultures, individuals, and economics from getting trashed as it becomes more hip?"

You know what's funny? All the things I listed that *would* happen if ayahuasca went mainstream already have happened. Welcome to the future.

I have met articles about ayahuasca several times and I think the problem is more curious than it seems at the first glance. I have an impression that ayahuasca has even become some "good psychedelic" in the almost-mainstream media discourse. In these articles it just doesn't carry that suspiciousness other psychedelics have acquired.
Many years ago I bought some little book about drugs - of course anti-drug, but on the informative level mostly quite honest, and of course as a 16-year-old, tortured by curiosity ;), I've been reading it in a different way, mostly concentrating on the chapter on psychedelics and description of their effects. Anyway, in that book mescaline seems to have the same role as ayahuasca in the media - of a "good psychedelic". The book's author, Wojciech Wanat, writes:
"Several times I've encountered the question, if it isn't perhaps mescaline which is the safest drug. Indeed it practically doesn't produce any physical addiction, and due to problems with finding it, it also hard to get psychologically addicted. So it's only dangerous as a circulating legend... about drugs as a gateway to paradise."
So it seems that in the mainstream discourse good drug = unavailable drug... Still it's some step forward to admit that perhaps some drug can not necessarily be bad. ;)

Pinchbeck is an odious little snakeoil merchant IMHO.

I bet the jock frats would put the beat down on the shaman frats

That's pretty funny James