The bias of "natural" psychedelics

[CrypticArc]

It really bothers me how people try to put natural psychedelics above synthetic ones. If an entirely new set of organisms developed, let's say for the sake of argument on a different planet, or on this planet in a parallel universe with the same or a very similar set of physical laws, it's 100% possible that many of these new lifeforms would be using the "synthetic" psychedelics for the same purposes as our current lifeforms use "natural" ones. I do see the experience of having a relationship with a plant or fungus as a good thing, and a vital part of many shamanistic traditions, but there's absolutely no reason the bias should exist outside of those traditions. Either way, many people simply dismiss the power and effectiveness of certain substances for certain purposes, just because they aren't found in our particular biome (earth as we know it).

These are just my opinions though. What are your thoughts on this bias? Have you experienced anything that you attribute to "natural" psychedelics that you don't believe could be recreated by any synthetic psychedelic, that isn't just a part of the character of that particular plant/drug? Unique psychedelics such as salvia don't count. Of course some drugs work better for certain people and purposes, and plants are the most widely legal ways of getting to the entheogenic state, so naturally, some people will swear by certain plants (including myself), but I'm willing to bet there are almost as many people who swear by synthetic psychedelics for the same exact reasons. Just to clarify, I'm not defending research chemicals in general, just tried and true synthetic psychedelics not found in known lifeforms. Sorry if this is a repost, but I wanted to hear what people have to say about what I have to say. Assuming it is, hopefully I at least added a unique argument to the discussion.

 

[Tranced]

I agree with you. In my personal experience, people who make this blanket statement (who I know personally) generally haven't had much experience with high dose synthetic psychedelics. And they've usually recently taken some kind of a high dose "natural" psychedelic with a shaman or something.

Unfortunatly l think this is going to become a pretty prevalent side effect of years of shitty street acid and the likes doing the rounds.

 

[roi]

Pretty much any "natural" substance can be synthesized in a lab (anything from DMT over Psilocin to Mescaline) anyway.

Only a insane person would be willing to take extracted DMT but not fully synthetic DMT. They're identical after all.

The whole argument is not based on logic or safety or anything really.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature.

 

[dariozee]

I think people believe there are 'spirits' in a plant, mushrooms, ayahuasca or peyote. Therefore these experiences are more or less culturally conditioned. But even Maria Sabina was praising synthetic psilocybin when Hofmann gave it to her. There are no differences between "natural" and synthetic - it's the same experience in our minds. There is no 'spirit' in the molecule, only in your head.

 

[bummer]

Consuming a plant you grew yourself is a rewarding hobby.

I trust my plant ID skills more than I trust a RC vendor's white powder ID skills.

Every now n then someone has a bad reaction to a RC previously thought of as being safe.
This thought has haunted while under the influence.
The risk / reward ratio of RCs feels all wrong to me.

Measuring out ultra potent powders and agonising over how many mgs to use never felt right to me either.
Much more comfortable with less precise units of measurement such as a gram, a bowl or a slack handful

 

[Goddess Mode]

I think that there is some anecdotal truth to this, but I don't think it technically has anything to do with a drug being natural or synthetic. Natural psychedelics tend to be the closest to the neurotransmitters in our brains, so of course they're going to be the most likely to have a wider and more properly mimetic receptor binding profile that can give them deeper and more structured effects overall, compared to a molecule which is more abstract or far removed from what our brains naturally look for. That's not a rule though, it's just probability. I don't personally find most synthetic psychedelics to be completely on the level of psilocin or DMT, but a select few of them undoubtedly are. On the other hand, I would say that almost every synthetic psychedelic I've ever tried is better than LSA plants. There are probably also tons of natural psychedelics that we have not yet discovered, ranging from potentially fantastic ones to things that are 5% psychedelic and 95% horrible poison, and I would make the exact same prediction for synthetic psychedelics. Ultimately, no, there's no difference. It's all foreign to your normal brain activity no matter what you take.

 

[red22]

Pretty much any "natural" substance can be synthesized in a lab (anything from DMT over Psilocin to Mescaline) anyway.

Only a insane person would be willing to take extracted DMT but not fully synthetic DMT. They're identical after all.

This is not what OP is talking about. OP is talking about substances that don't occur in nature ("they aren't found in our particular biome"). I presume that many 'all natural' people would embrace synthetic copies of naturally occurring chemicals. Example: Some people think that mescaline has a special design whereas a closely related Shulgin phenethylamine is a kind of fucked up diversion of the 'original' design.

 

[Ismene]

Depends on the drug doesn't it - psilocybin is fantastic and natural, LSD is fantastic and semi-synthetic, LSA is natural and complete shit.

 

[Neu!]

Essentially if the bias is purely based on natural vs synthetic argument then it's kind of idiotic.

If they were talking from experience, then maybe I'd let them have that.

Drugs are drugs, some are better than others, as Ismene rightly pointed out.

 

[CrypticArc]

Glad to hear the popular belief among the experienced is the same one I hold. Some people try to tell me acid is terrible for you (and they're the same ones smoking cigs and drinking alcohol) just because it was modified in a lab, but none of these people know what they're talking about. To be honest, part of the reason I made this thread is to show some of these people the truth based on the words of those with personal experience other than myself. I've noticed mostly everyone who lives around me prefers shrooms to acid but I personally think it's just the nature of the trip.

 

[murphythecat]

call me biased then, because IME, natural psychedelics are, by quite a large margin, much more rewarding.
I will go back to natural after my many try outs with RC.

they seem to have a more balanced and full experience. hard to explain but all my RC trips have been less complete then the natural psy

 

[veodo]

Natural or Synthetic, everything goes through the liver. Mushrooms are natural, and some of them can kill you.

 

[Grinders Kiefers]

call me biased then, because IME, natural psychedelics are, by quite a large margin, much more rewarding.
I will go back to natural after my many try outs with RC.

they seem to have a more balanced and full experience. hard to explain but all my RC trips have been less complete then the natural psy

Isn't some of that psychological then? It sounds like you have preconceptions about RCs and you're already expecting a diminished experience, so of course you have one.

 

[Jabberwocky]

I had a love affair with synthetic psychedelics, but it is fair to say that the natural ones are up there with the best synthetic ones. Fewer worries about overdosing, degradation, purity, getting sent the wrong chemical, etc. Less convenient to ingest of course. These have been used for millennia, and I don't see them as being unsafe on a purely physical level. The rest, well, you gotta navigate that, and it can have harmful effects so nothing unique there about natural psychedelics. Properly administered, understood and manufactured synthetic psychedelics are western sciences gift to the world though. I'm all for it.

 

[murphythecat]

Isn't some of that psychological then? It sounds like you have preconceptions about RCs and you're already expecting a diminished experience, so of course you have one.

I went into the RC's scene with hope and positivity and stil am. I still love and will enjoy RC's but I would take natural psy over any RC's. Even LSA is very special over everything else ive tried in RC's if only the nausea wasnt so bad.

I really like the experience ive had with RC's, but in retrospective there's no doubt in my mind that most if not ALL the natural psy had something in common that I preferred over RC's.
very hard to describe but me and my friends all agree about that and to be honest, im not surprised at all: it makes sense for me.

 

[Grinders Kiefers]

I went into the RC's scene with hope and positivity and stil am. I still love and will enjoy RC's but I would take natural psy over any RC's. Even LSA is very special over everything else ive tried in RC's if only the nausea wasnt so bad.

I really like the experience ive had with RC's, but in retrospective there's no doubt in my mind that most if not ALL the natural psy had something in common that I preferred over RC's.
very hard to describe but me and my friends all agree about that and to be honest, im not surprised at all: it makes sense for me.

Sorry, I was under the impression you had written off RCs completely based on the line, "I will go back to natural after my many try outs with RC", but I see what you mean now and that makes much more sense.

 

[Doldrugs]

The only reason I prefer the classics is they have established safety profiles from long histories of use. Any drug, artificial or not, can be worthwhile if it has an established safety profile. LSD is a classic and it's entirely artificial (and one of the safest substances on earth).

 

[Mycophile]

I had a love affair with synthetic psychedelics, but it is fair to say that the natural ones are up there with the best synthetic ones. Fewer worries about overdosing, degradation, purity, getting sent the wrong chemical, etc. Less convenient to ingest of course. These have been used for millennia, and I don't see them as being unsafe on a purely physical level. The rest, well, you gotta navigate that, and it can have harmful effects so nothing unique there about natural psychedelics. Properly administered, understood and manufactured synthetic psychedelics are western sciences gift to the world though. I'm all for it.

What about natural psychedelics like Belladonna, Henbane and Jimson Weed?

They've been used for millenia and are DEFINITELY unsafe on a physical level.

Much more so than many RCs.

 

[RhythmSpring]

It's been my experience that natural psychedelics feel psychologically safer, as if the experiences are guided by a benevolent intelligence. Natural psychedelics, in my experience, have left longer-lasting changes in my psyche (positive ones) than synthetic ones.

They just feel, well, more natural to me. And yes, that is a value judgment. I'd rather have an experience that feels natural to me than unnatural. Ya dig?

 

[CrypticArc]

What about natural psychedelics like Belladonna, Henbane and Jimson Weed?

They've been used for millenia and are DEFINITELY unsafe on a physical level.

Much more so than many RCs.

But their safety profile is well-known because of this use, the same way real natural psychs have a known safety profile because of traditional use. I think levelsBeyond was more taking about the fact that, even with such a history of use, they're known for their safety.