The bias of "natural" psychedelics

[Doldrugs]

Semisynthetic or "entirely synthetic" (what are some examples of this? Ketamine?) drugs are both altered and can have drastically different effects and safety profiles. I don't think being "semisynthetic" makes something safer or even similar to what it's derived from.

 

[HZTB]

Something being natural or synthetic has no incidence on its safety. The only difference really is that hundreds or thousands of years of use of mushrooms by people tells us that is relatively safe to use, and a few decades of LSD use likewise.

 

[Ismene]

Are the effects at all similar to lysergic acid?

Yes. That's why Hoffman called it "coming the full circle" when he found lysergic acid in morning glory seeds.

What does "entirely synthetic" even mean? There's no gradations. Either it's naturally occurring or it isn't.

No, that's not what it means at all. Read what chippendale said again.

 

[Vurtual]

So mdma made from safrole is not a synthetic drug then?

 

[Ismene]

If the structure of MDMA contains the safrole structure then clearly not.

 

[Doldrugs]

Even minor changes in structure have massive changes in effects. The distinction is pointlessly pedantic. I don't think it has any value from a harm reduction standpoint.

 

[Ismene]

No-ones saying structure doesn't alter effects. They're just saying synthetic isn't the same as semi-synthetic.

 

[Dresden]

(1) Synthetic--made from scratch from organic chemicals not usually associated with life as we know it. Examples include PCP, MXE, 3/4-MeO-PCP, ketamine, benzos, fentanyl and its analogues, many prescription drugs, and GHB.

(2) Semi-synthetic--chemically made from starting organic chemicals found in nature. Examples include LSD, Mdxx, MMDA, TMA, TMA-2, TMA-6, methamphetamine, heroin, oxycodone, hyrdrocodone, etc...

(3) Natural--found as is in nature with no need of further structural tampering, though chemical extraction techniques are often used in their purification. Examples include morphine, psilocybin, cathinone, ephedrine, DMT, mescaline, cocaine, THC, nicotine, etc.

Yes, it's somewhat arbitrary.

The only people I've encountered who equate synthetic with bad are hippies. The don't usually like GMO food, red meat, Monsanto, or McDonald's either.

 

[HZTB]

Please don't conflate those very different issues with the question at hand.

 

[red22]

(1) Synthetic--made from scratch from organic chemicals not usually associated with life as we know it. Examples include PCP, MXE, 3/4-MeO-PCP, ketamine, benzos, fentanyl and its analogues, many prescription drugs, and GHB.

(2) Semi-synthetic--chemically made from starting organic chemicals found in nature. Examples include LSD, Mdxx, MMDA, TMA, TMA-2, TMA-6, methamphetamine, heroin, oxycodone, hyrdrocodone, etc...

I wouldn't be surprised if some chemicals traditionally associated with synthetic could actually be considered semisynthetic.

 

[psilocybin-dream]

I feel like most people who hold the "natural = better" bias have a preconception before they ever take psychedelics that "mushrooms = wholesome" while chemicals, LSD, Shulgin creations, whatever, are not...so holding that preconception anyways, they end up thinking the same thing when they trip on any of those drugs. They already decided how those drugs were going to act before doing them. Personally, I judge drugs based on their own merits, "natural/chemical" has nothing to do with it...and I'd say the drug I find most useful is DOC (next in line would be LSD). Mushrooms are great for a full mental reset, for basically leaving this reality behind entirely, but DOC is actually much more useful for actually getting personal work done & actually figuring things out, I know the directions I need to push myself & on DOC I'm able to do so, as well it's depth is easier to put to genuine use since I can maintain much clearer & more focused thought processes on DOC than on drugs like mushrooms (which basically melt my mind away for much of the experience when I really have enough).