• Psychedelic Drugs Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting RulesBluelight Rules
    PD's Best Threads Index
    Social ThreadSupport Bluelight
    Psychedelic Beginner's FAQ
  • PD Moderators: Esperighanto | JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Differences between naturally occuring and completely synthetic psychedelics?

C

Cepheus

Bluelighter
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
142
Location
south
I was just reading an interview with Sasha & Ann Shulgin in the Entheogen Review where the talked, amongst other things, about an experience with ayahuasca, which both found to be quite negative (here).

I'm curious as to whether you guys think there is more than psychological divide between the classic natural psychedelics, e.g. the ones with a long history of human use, compared to the relatively new synthetic jobbies.

Do experiences with chemicals such as 4-aco-dmt, 4-ho-met, etc compare with that of Psilocybe mushrooms? (I'm aware that there are trace amounts of other alkaloids present, which could influence the trip).
 
I don't dread the dichotomy, it interests me very much :)

The fact that Ayahuasca apparently slammed the door shut in the Shulgin's faces makes me ponder deeply indeed.

Although I love and respect the synthetics, my best RC experiences do not even come close to my best plant experiences.



(Well OK except maybe Miprocin+Ketamine 8)8o;) )
 
Thanks for the link :).

It just seems odd to me that the Shulgin's seem to react negatively to dmt (both smoked and in ayahuasca), I figured maybe there's something behind it =/.
 
Feste said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Classic fallacy & makes no sense what-so-ever.
Click to expand...

If you can point out the logic aspect of any part of the psychedelic experience (other than, ingest chemical -> trip balls), I'd be impressed.

I guess this is more of a metaphysical question with respect to the drugs in their natural form.

Does the presence of trace amounts of other alkaloids (like in mushrooms, you have baeocystin, norbaeocystin and a whole range of trace amounts of various methylated, hydroxylated, alkylated tryptamines) have a defined effect on the trip?
 
PepperSocks said:
Oh dear; I dread this dichotomy. I consider synthetic psychedelics to be natural.

Are beaver dams natural? We as natural mammals create things. We as natural creatures create synthetic psychedelics. Does that make them unnatural?

Here's our Main Natural vs. Chemical / Synthetic Psychedelics thread
Click to expand...


Is a cake natural, or a man-made product? That (whether something is man-made, not whether its a cake) is how I define "natural" vs "synthetic".

Your argument is valid though Socks, but, all semantical qubbling aside, there is an aesthetic difference between synthetic and natural compounds, and being creatures of great subjectivity, that is enough to make a difference.

However, you will find PD members who insst that synthetic DMT and natural DMT are different; and they are right really. In human made products, there is the inherent INTENT; in the plant kingdom, intent is not as predominant as is chance.
 
swilow said:
Your argument is valid though Socks, but, all semantical qubbling aside, there is an aesthetic difference between synthetic and natural compounds, and being creatures of great subjectivity, that is enough to make a difference.

However, you will find PD members who insst that synthetic DMT and natural DMT are different; and they are right really. In human made products, there is the inherent INTENT; in the plant kingdom, intent is not as predominant as is chance.
Click to expand...

the fact that there is an aesthetic difference for some people (definitely not all) between 2 things (LOL) that are EXACTLY the same, simply because one required a human being to mean it, is sort of ridiculous to me. why cant people see themselves as animals? sure, we mess with the natural environment, but EVERY single thing that we have is derived from nature. how could it not be? just because we're smart enough to use resources in weird and wonderful ways doesnt mean its necessarily bad. i think the same negative connotations that people attach to the word "synthetic" should also be attached to the word "natural", as a lot of natural things are either a rip off, or completely unresearched, but you slap the word natural on it and its fine.

personally i dont think synthetic or natural is necessarily good or bad. keep an open mind about it, when you start saying things like "natural is better" you have problems.
 
Cepheus said:
Thanks for the link :).

It just seems odd to me that the Shulgin's seem to react negatively to dmt (both smoked and in ayahuasca), I figured maybe there's something behind it =/.
Click to expand...

Probably mostly a matter of personal preferene, some people don't like DMT. If you read through PiHKAL & TiHKAL, there is a preference for what has large scale therapeutic potential. And while DMT is therapeutic for some, it certainly isn't for everyone. Reactions would be far too variable for it to have widespread use. This isn't to say the Dr. Shulgin doesn't appreciate these substances, just prefers others, like any other psychonaut.

As for natural vs. synthetic, I enjoy both, but most of the time I prefer synthetic, mostly because I know exactly how much of what I'm getting. With plants, its so incredibly variable from specimen to specimen even within the same species that its hard to calibrate dosage with any accuracy at all. However, this can also be a fun part of an experience with natural psychs, I just have to be in a particular mood for that sort of endeavor.
 
Eldaren said:
personally i dont think synthetic or natural is necessarily good or bad.
Click to expand...

I don't think synthetic or natural is necessarily good or bad either.

But I do think that in general, plants have a more (or at least differently) developed sentience, and deeper wells of cosmic experience to draw from.

I guess that's really what it is for me. Not so much a question of aesthetics (altho that's important too), as sentience.

And I scoff at reductionism :)



Now everybody can flame me for my old-fashioned, ignorant superstitions 8) <3
 
I enjoy both and don't really have a preference

Though the fact that most natural occurring stuff is free is generally a huge bonus for me
 
I don't necessarily care how something was made, just what it is and what it does.

And if what it is is LSD and what it does is make me trip flabbermcwhatsits, then you have my attention! :D
 
A couple weeks ago my cousin came over and I was coming down from LSD. I told him about it and some other things I do and his response was "it's all chemicals man; it's not good for you". He's a big cokehead BTW. So he goes on to tell me that cocaine comes from a coca plant; it's natural even though it's refined and stuff. Basically saying cocaine was better for me than psychedelics because it was natural. :\
 
Natural psychedelics: Mix of shit, some of which is good, and some of which is not, all taken together. The good stuff was developed essentially by chance.

Synthetic psychedelics: One (or two, in the case of material supplied as the racemate) things only. Developed and selected with an eye towards making a good psychedelic.

I'm a lot more comfortable with white powders. But maybe that's because my background is in chemical engineering...
 
OK so the link is posted to the proper topic, still:
Besides all the misconceptions out there what remains is that synthetic compounds, whatever their activity is, tend to be purified and selected for direct action. A pharmacological ideal is to use as little material as possible, have the compound act very selective, and pure. The drawback is that many compounds on earth get manufactured long before we know the specifics about them, since it's virtually impossible to try and see the chronic effect of one co-factor without jumbling all the causality!
So it should be evident that the result is that some chemical compounds of concerns can be extremely potent, selecting in a way not 100% understood, all in a little pill. This is a topic of accuracy.
From this, all the trouble caused by purified preparates should be shown logically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top