From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Where did the notion that o-acetylpsilocin reduces cellular heat generation by competing for acetyltransferase come from? If true this is an important distinction between it and psilocin, but it's not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The Image is incorrect[edit]

The ethylamine tail is place at the wrong spot on the indole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Cacycle (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed from Mycotoxins[edit]

I removed this page from Category:Mycotoxins because O-Acetylpsilocin is not found in any mushrooms.

Alan Rockefeller (Talk - contribs) 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: it is actually possible to grow the mushrooms on a media containing DPT, DiPT, or DMT

[quote] Apparently the enzymes that are responsible for the 4-hydroxy group of psilocin are indifferent to what it is they choose to 4-hydroxylate. He has taken things like DPT or DIPT and put them in the growth media and the fruiting bodies that came out contain 4-hydroxy-DPT or 4-hydroxy-DIPT instead of psilocin. In fact, he has a patent on the process. [/quote]

Basically, 4-ho-DiPT or perhaps 4-aco-DMT as well can naturally occur in mushrooms, if grown using this method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FractalStruxture (talkcontribs) 16:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC) 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)FractalStruxture --FractalStruxture (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not "naturally", it is a process, and it is Hydroxylation, not acetylation. (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


4-aco-dmt should not be merged with 4-aco-det. Di-methyl, and di-ethyl tryptamines are different chemicals and as so, it would not make sence to combine the two.

Well then it needs to be cleared up, because both articles refer to it as "4-aco-dmt." I can see how it doesn't need to be merged now, but I do not have enough of a knowledge to fix the errors. Any suggestions would be appreciated, or someone can do it themselves if they have the time and knowledge. Anirak1337 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I vote no on merging. Anirak1337 someone made a mistake there, I will correct, and mention it on the 4-AcO-DET page as well. As mentioned before they are not the same substance. "O-Acetylpsilocin" should be the only one that says "4-aco-dMt", the other is "4-aco-dEt". --Astavats 22:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I dont see why the two pages should be merged, might as well merge the DMT and DET pages...

-- (talk) 13:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Re-Naming the Article Suggestion[edit]

I suggest the article name be changed from the current "O-Acetylpsilocin" to "4-Acetoxy-DMT". The reason being that both 4-Acetoxy-DET, and 4-Acetoxy-DiPT are listed this way on (along with, and, as opposed to "O-Acetylethocin", and "O-Acetyliprocin". I feel this will help keep Wikipedia cleaner looking, and easier for people to understand. I'm not going to edit it myself, so anyone who agrees/disagrees please put in your thoughts.--Astavats 01:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I tend to keep it under the current name because it is a closer analog (chemically as well as pharmacologically) of psilocin than of DMT. There is already a redirect from 4-Acetoxy-DMT in place, so everybody can find it under any name. Сасусlе 04:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"it is a closer analog (chemically as well as pharmacologically) of psilocin than of DMT" no offense, but this reasoning is stupid. nobody suggested the article be called "DMT" they suggested it be called "4-AcO-DMT." in shulgin nomenclature psilocin would be called "4-HO-DMT" all other 4-HO/AcO/PrO-Ts are named under this convention, thusly this article should be renamed for the sake of uniformity. furthermore nobody calls this chemical "O-acetylpsilocin" i know its referred to as such in one article but i have personally spoken with david nichols the chemist responsible for its notoriety and he referred to the chemical as "4-Acetoxy-DMT" so there you have it. case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
From a chemical perspective, all names are exactly equivalent, they are all in use, they are all comprehensible, they are mentioned in the article, and redirects are in place, so no reason to worry. It is pretty much irrelevant if you personally have never heard anybody talking about "O-acetylpsilocin" or if Dave at one time used one over the over name. The compound is more or less a form of psilocin, it is synthesized from it, it is converted back into it in the body, and its pharmacological actions are exactly the same - pretty much like the pairs salicylic acid and acetylsalicylic acid or morphine and diacetylmorphine. Also, psilocin is one of the few compounds that has a widely accepted trivial name, unlike most of the other substituted DMTs, so we do not have to resort to cryptic abbreviations. Unless the article "psilocin" gets moved to "4-OH-DMT" I suggest that we keep the O-Acetylpsilocin article under its current name. Cacycle (talk) 08:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Purely from personal experience, I have to say that I don't believe that 4-aco-dmt is equivalent to psilocin. The effects are way different, I know many people who have taken it and have taken it myself and the effects differ from psilocin as much as any of its other analogues do. It could be very possible that both 4-ho-dmt and 4-aco-dmt are active, each with there own affects. But I think until further research confirms it I wouldn't go around saying "The compound is more or less a form of psilocin, it is synthesized from it, it is converted back into it in the body" Make it more clear that this is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The chemical has never been referred to as O-Acetylpsilocin in any scientific literature. In fact the only place I have seen it referred to as O-Acetylpsilocin is on wikipedia itself (which has lead to it being referred by this name on erowid). This is somewhat ridiculous as wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia of already existing information. Nicholls does not refer to it as O-Acetylpsilocin (o-acetylated pro drug of psilocin != o-acetylpsilocin) , nor did Hofmann in his original patent. Shulgin's suggested name of Psilacetin is immediately more relevant. However, like others in this discussion I believe it should be referred to as 4-aco-dmt, in line with all the other 4-acetylated tryptamines, as this will help create a stronger distinction between the man made synthetic 4-aco-dmt "psilacetin" and the naturally occurring psilocybin and psilocin.

An effects section?[edit]

Should this page have an "Effects" section, or would that be too subjective (due to very limited factual data available on the substance, and also some may think it'd be a waste of time due to 4-AcO being "identical" to psilocin/psilocybin)?

I would imagine any addition to an effects section would be original research, however at the same time this is an obscure RC, and maybe some subjective (as least as subjective as erowid or bluelight) info might be a good idea?

while this isn't a harm reduction site, it is a site for the collection of data.

Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FractalStruxture (talkcontribs) 13:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add here that 4-AcO-DMT and magic mushrooms are NOT identical and while similar, have different effects. This is coming from personal experience, so let's not continue to enforce the notion that these two drugs are "basically the same thing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've anonymously (well hopefully) added some visual effects based on eh, "trip reports" , maybe first hand reports in a dream. I tried to be as accurate and concise as I could be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

15 August changes[edit]

I'm not very familiar with wikipedia and made the changes anonymously, but I made several changes on 15 August. The information was dated and inaccurate, based almost entirely on Shulgin's initial speculation that psilacetin is a simple prodrug for psilocin; unless the entire body of trip reports on IV and IM use are false, it is clear that psilacetin is active on its own. Discussion on this compound online is most active and vibrant on Bluelight, a reputable drug discussion forum, and discussion there indicates a shorter duration and distinctly DMT-like effects. Feel free to reword my edits to be in line with wiki conventions, but the information is certainly better than the unsourced speculation it replaces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits. However, I have removed the bluelight referenced paragraph for now as the provided reasoning it obviously wrong - compare to heroin which acts in seconds but still is an inactive prodrug of morphine. Cacycle (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Heroin is a bit more complex than that; when injected, its rapid effects are actually due to it skipping first-pass metabolism and crossing the blood-brain barrier, where it becomes 6-MAM. It's still a pro-drug, though, and you are correct; it is possible that psilacetin is not active itself and, like heroin, simply passes the BBB and deacetylates in the brain very rapidly into either psilocin or some other 4-substituted tryptamine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Street name[edit]

The fact that it's known as "Aco" in the NE US looks like original research. I've never heard it called that, anyway. Citation? Ohnodoctor (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

language link[edit]

Why does the german language link direct to Psilocin? It´s a different compound. Sorry I dont´t know if i should ask it here or in the german article. (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a German article for O-acetylpsilocin, but the compound is mentioned in the German version of Psilocin, so it's appropriate to link to that article. If a German article specifically for O-acetylpsilocin is ever created, the link can be switched to point there. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

caught you[edit]

go to ethnospirit much? Thats not factual effects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Remove dubious tag[edit]

" These above doses are taken from the site, which advises potential users of this chemical as a psychedelic drug: "Please note that the above doses should only be used as a general outline. This chemical is still relatively new, with a short history of human use. Every individual reacts differently to every chemical." "

The above section has a dubious tag, which I think needs to be removed. I get that the person was suggesting that everyone reacting differently to different chemical is dubious, but that was not the assertion of the above section. The above section asserts that the claim (everyone reacts differently etc.) is ON, not that it is correct. Therefore the dubious tag is misplaced, and as it stands right now, reads that it is considered dubious that the above phrase (Everyone reacts differently etc.) is on erowid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I would agree the tag ought to be removed, there is nothing dubious about the facts made in the statement. Experiences of these drugs are highly subjective, and while different people will have different reactions to the same dose, so can one person when trying the same amount repeatedly. I do not think there is any reason to doubt what is being said here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


I have some major issues with the inclusion of Śūnyatā as an effect of O-Acetylpsilocin. Reading about Śūnyatā it appears it is a Buddhist concept. There are no citations (the article suffers from this in general to be fair) for this effect and I believe the inclusion is completely nonsensical. It may make more sense to any followers of the Buddhist faith who are reading the article but it is essentially meaningless to any individuals who are not Buddhist.

Additionally it seems to me that this purported effect is likely covered by another listed effect, namely dissociation. Dissociation is an accepted concept which makes sense to everyone, and not just followers of the Buddhist faith.

it is my intention to be bold and return to remove Śūnyatā from the list of effects if this is not already done after a short space of time. A lot of the article is terrible but this particularly irks me. Futures,yeah? (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed Śūnyatā as discussed above. Also telepathy; what is wrong with you people? Futures,yeah? (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

effects section[edit]

the following has been tagged as unsourced for over a year. please note that sources will need to comply with WP:MEDRS


O-Acetylpsilocin is theorized to be metabolized into psilocin, as such is the case with psilocybin;[citation needed] however, reports indicate that O-acetylpsilocin may be active on its own.[citation needed] The effects of O-acetylpsilocin are therefore somewhat similar to the effects of psilocybin and psilocin.[medical citation needed]

  • Brightened colors / enhanced visual perception
  • Introspection and philosophical insights
  • Stimulation/ sensation / tingling (serotonin system)
  • Euphoria
  • Perceptual enhancement
  • Empathy
  • Sexual arousal
  • Coldness/cold sensations
  • Mydriasis
  • Hyperarousal
  • Colour alteration/fluorescent patterns/tracers
  • Time dilation and nonlinearity
  • Synesthesia
  • Dissociation (only at very high doses)
  • Sedation / Somnolence
  • Lethargy, fatigue
  • Auditory hallucinations
Negative effects
  • Mild to severe anxiety
  • Shivering
  • Paranoia
  • Stomach discomfort
  • Insomnia
  • Overly-intense experience (at high doses)
  • Overwhelming ideas and/or racing thoughts
  • Difficulty speaking
  • Motor impairment, vertigo
  • Confusion
  • Significantly elevated heart rate
  • Hypothermia

- Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Why, exactly, don't we discuss pending legislation?[edit]

I understand that the legislation may change or die, but we can change the article again when that happens. I would think the fact that a completely legal purchasable substance was about to be classified as a Schedule 1 felony would be good information for potential "users" to have. I see no downsides to discussing pending legislation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTNEWS. Our mission is to provide the public with accepted knowledge, not passing events. Pending bills may never be enacted; many never even make it out of committee. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)