Cecil’s Column:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/691/is-nutmeg-hallucinogenic
A recent column in The Atlantic describing one reporter’s experience:
Cecil’s Column:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/691/is-nutmeg-hallucinogenic
A recent column in The Atlantic describing one reporter’s experience:
Many, many years ago I tried this. I ate about half a cup of ground nutmeg, which was not easy and I do not recommend it. I got absolutely nothing out of it except a lasting distaste for nutmeg.
In college, I knew two guys who tried it.
They said that you have to eat about a cup of the stuff. Which is pretty disgusting, to begin with.
They said that you get the hangover before you get the high, and you still have the hangover after you come down from the high.
One of them described the hangover as “like a tequila hangover”. The other one described it as “like getting hit in the face with a shovel”.
They both said that they tried it once, to be able to say that they had done it, but neither of them had any intention of doing it again.
I did try nutmeg once. I ate a large tin can of the stuff, which was a misery to gag down. It definitely worked, but the sensation was akin to having a delirious case of the flu on top of a terrible hangover with a case of the spns thrown in for good measure. I’d never do it again, nor would I recommend it to anyone.
So the consensus seems to be, Cecil called it right: If you want to get high, there are better, easier, and more effective ways. Nutmeg, in any quantity, is probably better than krokodil.
I believe, if I am not mistaken (or even if I am), that nutmeg, bay laurel, and cinnamon are all closely related spices, derived from closely related species. Furthermore, seems I heard that catnip is closely related to those too.
Anybody know, offhand, if I’m anywhere near the right ballpark on that?
Not really.
Catnip is a member of Lamiaceae - related to popular mediterranean culinary herbs such as thyme, rosemary, sage, and mint
Cinnamon and Bay laurel are related - members of Lauraceae
Nutmeg not closely related to any of the above - it’s a member of Myristicaceae (which does not seem to contain many other species that are at all well-known as culinary spices, or house/garden plants etc.)
The column did not consider the freshness of the nutmeg – it is the volatile oil that contains the hallucinogenic agent. Thus the dried nutmeg in the can is ineffective. Freshly grated nutmeg is very strong, and much smaller quantities would be needed. I know this from experience, because I am very sensitive to freshly grated nutmeg, can’t even have it in small culinary amounts in eggnog or french toast. It makes me dizzy, dioriented, and, as Juan Doe said, very much like being sick with the flu.
Catnip is a member of the mint family, but nutmeg, bay laurel and cinnamon are all tree-derived and are probably closely related. But I don’t think catnip is. Catnip is closer to basil.
‘Tree derived’ isn’t really any kind of useful indicator of relatedness - as there are numerous families that contain trees as well as herbaceous plants - for example the mint family - lamiaceae - produces mint(obviously) - a herb, as well as teak - a large tropical hardwood tree.
As noted in post #6, Nutmeg is not closely related to any of the other plants Senegoid listed.
Why, then, are “tree nuts” always lumped together like that, as a class of foods that some people are allergic to? I always wondered why such a seemingly arbitrary grouping would make any sense.
It’s a fairly arbitrary grouping in terms of taxonomic relatedness* - it’s a grouping based on fruit morphology and characteristics - it happens that a number of different botanical families have produced members that employ broadly similar plant form (trees) and broadly similar seed production/dispersal strategies (a nut). It’s not an indicator of relatedness any more than, say, lemongrass happening to taste like lemons (those two examples are more distantly related than the others we’re discussing here - it’s just an example of how superficial similarity doesn’t necessarily indicate close relatedness)
*Let’s see…
Almonds - Prunus dulcis - Rosaceae (rose family - almonds are closely related to peaches)
Hazelnuts/cos/filberts - Corylus spp - Betulaceae (the birch family)
Walnuts - Juglans spp - Juglandaceae (the walnut family)
Pecans - Carya illinoinensis - Juglandaceae (Pecans are related to walnuts)
Brazil Nuts - Bertholletia excelsa - Lecythidaceae (a family of tropical woody plants, of which Brazil nuts are about the only familiar example)
Macadamias - Macadamia spp - Proteaceae (the protea family - otherwise well known for producing spectacular cut flowers such as Banksia)
Cashews - Anacardium occidentale - Anacardiaceae (related to mango, poison ivy, sumac)
Pistacio - Pistacia vera - Anacardiaceae (pistacios are related to cashews)
Chestnuts - Castanea spp - Fagaceae (the beech family)
Of course, every organism on earth is related to all the others, if you go far enough back up the ancestral tree, and it’s true that at the taxonomic Order level, groupings do start to appear in the above list, but that’s not really very significant in everyday terms of relatedness, because it’s where you can start to say that cannabis is related to strawberries, and oranges are related to horse chestnuts.
Nutmeg is a very good anti-diarrheal, about 1/8th teaspoon. I have to wonder about that side effect for those who took it in amounts large enough to get high.
Oh, and it can cause convulsions in large doses - the kind that can kill you.
Wait a minute! You missed the point of my question, or at least didn’t address it. Is there, in fact, a tendency for people who are allergic to some kind(s) of “tree nuts” to be allergic to many or all other kinds of “tree nuts”? Because of the not-near-relatedness of all those kinds of trees, that’s what I find odd, if true.
Part of the reason for that is that they’re often processed together or otherwise cross-contaminated - there’s no guarantee that, for example, a packet of shelled hazelnuts won’t contain fragments or particles of some other kinds of nuts that were processed previously using the same equipment - to a certain extent, it’s a case of erring on the side of caution, on the part of the supplier and the severely-allergic consumer.
It’s quite possible (and I think most common) to be allergic to one kind of tree nut and not others - and in these cases, the allergy will probably be consistent with the taxonomic relatedness of the plants - so someone allergic to walnuts would probably be allergic to pecans and possibly hickory nuts, or someone allergic to cashews would probably be allergic to pistacios.
It’s also possible (less common, I think) to be allergic to more than one kind of tree nut. Speculating here, I’d say that this could just be because nuts represent a particular kind of plant survival strategy, and it’s not improbable that they might have (somewhat independently of each other) convergently evolved somewhat similar chemistries to each other.
But for the most part, ‘tree nut’ is an arbitrary, non-taxonomic grouping, and people with allergies are avoiding the whole group as a precaution, and because of the likelihood of cross-contamination.