• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ

The Big & Dandy Natural vs. Chemical / Synthetic Psychedelics Thread

Do you (tend to) prefer synthetic psychedelics (incl LSD) or natural ones?

  • Natural

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • Synthetic

    Votes: 7 87.5%
  • Total voters
    8
It's not possible to compare the effects of psilocybin and psilocin is it? Isn't psilocybin converted to psilocin in the body before it becomes active? So no-one feels the effects of psilocybin, it's the psilocin that produces the effects.

I suppose if you're taking psilocin directly that could alter how quickly hits you.
 
^^ That's not been proven, which is my point. It's an assumption that's made. Shulgin assumed the acetoxy esters converted to the hydroxy esters in vivo also, which would make them essentially the same, but hundreds if not thousands of reports to the contrary have virtually proven that it's not the case... I don't know many people who say they are unable to tell the difference between 4-AcO-DMT and 4-HO-DMT, or 4-AcO-DiPT and 4-HO-DiPT (those two are just two totally different chemicals), and so on. As far as I know no one has tasted 4-PO-DMT by itself. So there's really no way we can know if it has the same effects.
 
Natural psychedelics are superior in a number of ways in my opinion. You know they are not adulterated if you harvest them yourself. They have an extensive history of human experiementation. The varied alkaloidal content contributes to a more complex experience subjectively. Our plant friends are perfect at the chemistry they do, there are no unknow harmfull byproducts and the sythesis is exceedingly efficient tuned by thousands of years of natural selection for enzymatic processes. There is nary a chance of a person being unknowingly dosed and the liklihood of a massive overdose is reduced because plant material acts as a bult in cuting/measuring agent (one could argue that you never know your exact dose, which is true but look at the number of reports on acidental OD's of RC's versus cacti, mushrooms, cannabis, etc).

That is not to say sythetics are evil or harmfull by neccesity but you are definitely loading another round in the game of russian roulette when you play with sythetics. Even our oldest friend LSD is still a RC in my eyes, 50 years of self experimentation by mostly caucasian individuals in a handfull of nations is not what I would call an extensive knowledge base. The scientific literature is severely lacking because of its legality. In this respect natural chems have a sizable atvantage but synthetics can still be a godsend.
 
donvliet said:
IMO anything that exists, and anything that ever will exist, is per definition natural. Nature contains all possibilities for matter and energy to combine in any way that it can. So for me the question of natural vs synthetic is meaningless...........
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree wholeheartledly with your first assertion, I do take issue on your second.

The meaning (the outcome of the natural vs synthetic question) will of course, be what we decide to give it. What I am saying is that it is not necessarily a "useless" project - maybe you weren't saying that either, but I thought the sense of your statement implied that.

Perhaps the question could be framed around 'differerent methods of manufacture' rather than 'natural vs synthetic'. We could look at a plant as being a kind of chemical factory. Different in kind, but a synthesising process nonetheless. Now for example, psilocybin/psilocin or whatever can, I'm sure, be made in a lab using a number of different methods, each involving some different substances (precursors & reagents).

So technically we have 'three' different modes of synthesis (mushrooms and, let's say, at least two different lab processes). The end result will be the same - psilcybin/psilocin (let's forget about the other substances present in mushrooms, as they have been dealt with already, and set and setting will play a significant part irrespective of where the substance comes from). Is it not conceivable that residues from the lab production - however small they may be - may impart a certain subtle "flavour" to each final product?

I'm just setting up a hypothesis here - I know there are many serious chemists here in BL. Perhaps they'd like to comment.
 
EntheoDjinn said:
Is it not conceivable that residues from the lab production - however small they may be - may impart a certain subtle "flavour" to each final product?
Click to expand...

It's quite likely even. But because all three examples you gave will have some sort of residue (also the plant version), neither is necessarily better than the others. They will probably be different, but that's true also between two different types of plant synthesis. It's no valid base to make a distinction between "natural" and "synthetic".
 
Ismene said:
All in all, I have never had consistent results with either synthetic or natural substances.

The question is also whether the psychedelic experience itself can ever happen to somebody in a consistent manner.

For example, if you had exactly the same dose of LSD from exactly the same batch and you took it 50 different times would you really have 50 experiences exactly the same?
Click to expand...

of course not
 
Natural psychedelics are superior in a number of ways in my opinion. You know they are not adulterated if you harvest them yourself. They have an extensive history of human experiementation. The varied alkaloidal content contributes to a more complex experience subjectively. Our plant friends are perfect at the chemistry they do, there are no unknow harmfull byproducts and the sythesis is exceedingly efficient tuned by thousands of years of natural selection for enzymatic processes. There is nary a chance of a person being unknowingly dosed and the liklihood of a massive overdose is reduced because plant material acts as a bult in cuting/measuring agent (one could argue that you never know your exact dose, which is true but look at the number of reports on acidental OD's of RC's versus cacti, mushrooms, cannabis, etc).

That is not to say sythetics are evil or harmfull by neccesity but you are definitely loading another round in the game of russian roulette when you play with sythetics. Even our oldest friend LSD is still a RC in my eyes, 50 years of self experimentation by mostly caucasian individuals in a handfull of nations is not what I would call an extensive knowledge base. The scientific literature is severely lacking because of its legality. In this respect natural chems have a sizable atvantage but synthetics can still be a godsend.
Click to expand...

Very nice thoughts. Its nice to see someone who is thinking about cultivation and natural as a more tested, safe path.

The ethnobotanical knowledge of plants and as intoxicants and healing brews is not just a hippy naturalist naive thing. The traditional knowledge cannot be underestimated.

Sure we do what we want with our heads, but ...

There have been reports that isolated substances were less efficient than herbs as whole, when healing a health problem.

SO there is IS to say that natural has something, special, unique to it! The evolution line, the ancient knowledge it carries...
 
SO there is IS to say that natural has something, special, unique to it! The evolution line, the ancient knowledge it carries...
Click to expand...

That is just a matter of taste really. Theres no reason to assume a molecule carries ANYTHING- it only really is of import when it interacts with the human brain.
 
swilow said:
That is just a matter of taste really. Theres no reason to assume a molecule carries ANYTHING- it only really is of import when it interacts with the human brain.
Click to expand...

Genetic information carries data regardless of the ability for a human brain to understand this. It is the genetic information that allows psychoactive chemicals to be synthesized by the plant or fungi. If evolution allows for the formation of these substances, maybe it can be argued that they have passed certain environmental tests that modern synthetic psychoactive chemicals have not.
 
^That would mean that these plants have a much different purpose then providing a psychoative treat, as they existed long before the human mind did. So saying 'It is the genetic information that allows psychoactive chemicals to be synthesized by the plant or fungi" is kind of implying that the sole purpose of these chemcials in the plant is to interatct with a 'psyche' of sorts.

As to the environemntal tests- well, lets assume that these plants evolved with no relationship to human beings, which is most probably true (besides perhaps salvia)....then it is safe to say that the plants are 'meant' to exist in their current form, but that in no way implies that their function is to bbe eaten for the effects on the mind. We see the alkaloids in these plants/fungi as being the most important aspect....thats our perspective.

For something to pass the evolutionary test, doesn't existence kinda imply that? Synthetic chemicals exist because human minds can make them, therefore they have passed the first "environmental test"- whether they can be real or not.

Lol, I have no idea if my post made sense. Lets pretend it does. :):)
 
I'm going to take this to a different level, just for the sake of it.

I've never noticed a difference between cocaine from a plant, or cocaine that was synthed in a lab. (oh the fun I had in university!) both of them made feel very happy and energetic and YAY!

ditto for morphine. be it raw poppy guck or synthed morphine, both feel just amazing.

and for the above, it diddnt matter what synthesis route was used in the lab, same for meth..doesnt matter if its reduction via HI/P or via Li/NH3. Same effects.

why should it be any different for psilocin?

how about synthetic Atropine vs Datura? Both of them where horrific DO NOT WANT! trips for me.

I think you guys are reading too much into your psychedelics... they're just chemicals that bind to receptors in your brain, just like the other kinds of drugs.
 
donvliet said:
It's quite likely even. But because all three examples you gave will have some sort of residue (also the plant version), neither is necessarily better than the others. They will probably be different, but that's true also between two different types of plant synthesis. It's no valid base to make a distinction between "natural" and "synthetic".
Click to expand...
But that's my point exactly. The stuff created in laboratories will be made with reagents that most likely are not involved in the plant syntheses, and therefore there will be specific differences between plant syntheses and specific 'different' differences between lab syntheses, and therefore differences between natural and synthetic.
 
theWorldWithin said:
....................Even our oldest friend LSD is still a RC in my eyes, 50 years of self experimentation by mostly caucasian individuals in a handfull of nations is not what I would call an extensive knowledge base. The scientific literature is severely lacking because of its legality. In this respect natural chems have a sizable atvantage but synthetics can still be a godsend.
Click to expand...
Actually there is an abundance of research from the early years prior to the scheduling of LSD. Many of the top psychiatrists in the western world made their names and acquired top positions in universities/hospitals on the back of their investigations into LSD.

So it's not really an RC, just an OC (outlawed chem ;))
 
EntheoDjinn said:
But that's my point exactly. The stuff created in laboratories will be made with reagents that most likely are not involved in the plant syntheses, and therefore there will be specific differences between plant syntheses and specific 'different' differences between lab syntheses, and therefore differences between natural and synthetic.
Click to expand...

It's just that these differences don't mean anything more than just that, unspecified differences. There still is no ground to say that one is better than the other.
 
mutnat said:
There have been reports that isolated substances were less efficient than herbs as whole, when healing a health problem.
Click to expand...

If we would synth the exact same mix of chemicals in a lab that you find in a herb, it would work as well as the herb itself. It still has nothing to do with the fact that a plant made it instead of humans.
 
swilow said:
^Eeek at preaching...
Click to expand...

Well, IMO the false distinction between natural and synthetic is something that has got to go before we can finally achieve acceptance and legalization of drugs in general. Sure, it's a very long way off, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be working as hard as possible for the cause.
 
Most people who defend "natural" drugs over synthetics use the "god made this" argument, and my response is "If god made mushrooms, why couldn't he inspire a chemist like Hoffman or Shulgin to create a psychedelic?" But I mostly just say that because it's easier than explaining why there's no difference in safety between the two :p

Of course some synthetics are more harmful than naturals, but the reverse is also true.
 
^Whenever someone defends "natural" over synthetic, I tell them to go eat some deadly nightshade...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top