The one that stores solar energy crosses stomach barrier in a way that alters it’s functioning drastically by giving it energy. Who knows if LSD equivalents found in plants helped proto-humans (from cells to any mammal) develop key aspects of the brain and therefore we are still receptive to them. Just because it’s used as a recreational drug today doesn’t mean that “it’s altering it’s functioning drastically” that’s just today’s society’s opinion on it or just because today we’re just simply abusing it by using large quantities of LSD (just like over eating and going obese, you’re drastically changing the body).
LSD works more like a toxin than a nutrient. I don't mean that LSD is deadly, it is actually a pretty safe drug in that regard, but the way it works is similar to how toxins work.
The way it works is that to some neurons, it looks a lot like serotonin, a neurotransmitter produced by our own body. In technical terms, it is a 5-HT2A agonist. But unlike serotonin, it doesn't want to get out, causing the affected neuron to fire constantly.
Not so different from carbon monoxide, which takes the place of oxygen in red blood cells and doesn't want to let go.
Even if the effects are completely different, they are both caused a molecule that mimic what our body normally uses, but not only it doesn't behave normally, but it is also much more durable. Causing a large effect with a small dose.
And in fact, LSD is derived from ergot fungi, which are toxic and have causes many deaths in the past.
The fact that LSD is of the family ergotamine, and that the fungus ergot which happens to contain ergotamine has caused deaths, is a meaningless statement.
Chemistry and psychopharmacology is an incredibly complex topic, and it isn't as simple as saying "Well, X is related to Y, and X causes A, ergo Y must cause A."
There's a concept called "structure-activity relationship" (SAR) in medicinal chemistry, and it's the study between a molecule's "physical" (for lack of a better word) shape and it's effects.
If you aren't familiar with medicinal chemistry, as a human your assumption is probably to go "Well, X molecule is really close to Y molecule, so they must do similar things."
Unfortunately, this just is not how it works.
Look at amphetamines. Saying something is an "amphetamine" is meaningless, because what an "amphetamine" is and does is entirely dependent on _which_ amphetamine it is.
Regular "amphetamine" is a simple stimulant.
Then you have psychedelic amphetamines, like 2,4,5-Trimethoxyamphetamine, which aren't stimulatory at all and act more like LSD.
Both of them are, by definition, "amphetamines", but no commonality in terms of effects/psychoactivity.
A single structural change makes the difference between being benign or being incredibly toxic, being a stimulant or a psychedelic, etc.
You can't talk about these things with sweeping generalizations.
The only way to have a legitimate, rational discussion about chemicals is to completely rid the physical structure from your head and discuss it in terms of it's receptor affinity, ligand-binding, and Ki values.
Everything else is complete pseudoscience and quackery.
So the categorization of toxins vs. nutrients is just "bio-active molecules which are either detrimental or beneficial" to the organism?
Or do nutrients always have to transfer solar energy as some post above alludes to? Vitamins functionally support the organism without delivering energy - but they are considered as nutrients too.
Or are we going to include the criticality of its absence? The absence of vitamin C causes scurvy. The absence of caffeine merely means losing luxury benefits "on top of" what we strictly need.
In that way and as the benefits seem to outweigh the negatives, one could definitely argue that caffeine is a nutrient.
