That is just factually wrong. The definition I could find is: "synthetic (adjective): (chemistry) Produced by synthesis instead of being isolated from a natural source (but may be identical to a product so obtained)."
Well, it's only partially wrong: I guess the underlined part suggests that DMT that was created without starting with the natural source would be technically considered 'synthetic DMT'. But the application of the word synthetic is not as clear-cut as the technical definition. For example, we CAN synthesize THC, but I've never heard a professional say that "THC is a synthetic drug." Same thing with psilocybin, it CAN be synthesized, but it also is regarded as a "natural drug." In theory ANY natural drug can be synthesized, but I'll bet if you ask a bunch of drug scientists whether or not they would call something a "synthetic" or a "natural" drug, the majority would base this answer ultimately on whether said drug is found in nature (natural), or it can only exist by human-creation (synthetic/semi-synthetic).
By your definition, methamphetamine was a synthetic drug for years, until it was discovered in a species of acacia. Then it suddenly became a "natural" drug?
Either that, or it was a so-called "natural" drug all along.
Wow, that's interesting, first time I learned this. It's true that meth was considered synthetic for a while. But since discovered in acacia, then it was/is indeed a "natural drug" all along. This is cited in the wikipedia page for methamphetamine, and is consistent with the above^ application of synthetic vs. natural drugs. The fact that it was considered a synthetic drug for a time was just due to our own ignorance to its natural origin. This is understandable, as science is never perfect, it is constantly changing and being revised/corrected.
I'll play along. What is it then, that makes "natural" compunds so inherently different?
Again, like I said before, entity contact is much more commonly reported with natural psychs than synthetic ones. I know this to be the case: I used to read trip reports by the dozens, each day that I got into the TRs, I would devote that day to one specific drug, and read as many different erowid reports as I could until bored. The next time would be devoted to a different drug. This way I could easily see common themes/patterns within a drug, and compare it to the commonalities of other drugs to make generalizations.
Another difference is that most of the drugs that are consider to be "hard to hurt yourself with" are natural ones (THC, psilocybin, DMT, etc.). This is not to say that there aren't dangerous natural compounds, just that in general a higher percentage of incidences of brain damage or death from recreational drug use is attributed to human-made drugs (e.g. PCP, MDMA, Fentanyl etc.) than natural ones.
Oh, and how can you label LSD a synthetic drug if that means that it ?
How do we know that LSD will not be discovered in nature at some point?
We can't really predict this until it is actually found in nature. Until then, it will be considered human-made. Not certain, but I think it could actually be semi-synthetic, as it may be a synthetically-altered form of a natural substance found in ergot fungi. LSD is an exception to the general rule that synthetics are more dangerous, because it is believed the lethal dose (if there is one) is extremely high compared to the active dose. But I am doubtful that it exists in nature because it is VERY difficult to synthesize LSD (the reason its world-supply is scarce). Don't hold me to this, but this may be an assertion that the structure is not stable enough to exist in nature.
.
