On Extraction and Synthetic Drugs

[Roger&Me]

^Well JWH's look pretty sketch to me, but the 2C family definitely seems to be very safe and useful.

May I also point out how difficult it would be, even with a degree, to get the proper funding and approval to do "legitimate" research on the aforementioned compounds.

Extremely difficult, but not impossible. Just look at how much Rick Doblin has managed to accomplish with MDMA research.

 

[Roger&Me]

Are you against guns, rocks, sharp and rigid objects, hemlock, and anything else that is inanimate and capable of hurting people?

I, for one, despise rocks. Minerals, in general, I believe to be fucking evil and degenerate forms of matter; even the calcium in my very bones makes me suspicious! Bones are just rocks in disguise anyways, and they've got you ALL wrapped around their rocky little fingers, and none of you even realize it-- ...........then one day, BAM!!!! You turn into a fucking boulder right where you're standing, and there you'll sit for the rest of time as a rocky, mineraly boulder dude. And all you'll be thinking about the whole time is how roger&me warned you about those insidious fucking minerals, but you brushed it off like it was NO BIG THANG. Well I'll tell you something, Mr. Boulder, I hope you're happy just chillin' there and shit because it doesn't look like you'll be going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Teotzlcoatl]

It's all in good fun boys and girls.

While I am being serious... don't take anything I say to seriously!

You have all been good sports, I apperciate it.

Sometimes people on other sites get EXTREMELY mad, hehe...

Are you against guns, rocks, sharp and rigid objects, hemlock, and anything else that is inanimate and capable of hurting people?

No, but I don't think all drugs should be legal either.

And neither do 90% of people.

I think all living plants and viable seeds should be legal.

You bring on some good points that I respect but wouldn't follow.

Thank you, I very much enjoyed your post.

The way you talk is oddly definitive... apparently if I don't follow some list of your personal and specific insights for your well being my mind will probably go to waste.

No, no... no... my little guide is designed to exclude everything but the absolute safest psychoactives.

If you like to live a little wild like most people do... well don't follow it... I'm not saying you'll go crazy or waste your mind... I'm just saying that I'm sure if I follow my guide, that I WON'T go crazy or waste my mind.

but these two posts really do add to your cult leader vibe you've got going on.

Hahaa Oh goodness, you haven't even seen my "temple" file...

Shall I post it? Can y'all handle it? I know you will flame me... I can handle that, lol... but can y'all?

 

[Roger&Me]

^Yeah I definitely don't understand how the lawmakers can make a living being illegal, plant or animal (in the case of bufotenine-producing toads). Its a travesty really.

In my own personal opinion, I extend that same notion to all forms of matter. I think as human beings, the ability to possess and/or utilize any esoteric form of matter should be our birth-right (provided we don't use that matter to harm anyone). Just my opinion.

 

[solistus]

Ugh. I give up arguing with this guy. For someone who accuses others of ignorant arrogance, you seem to be the only person here saying that A) other people getting arrested is fine so long as they are using "bad" synthetics you don't approve of and B) anyone who thinks about or values psychedelics differently from you is not only wrong but somehow a threat to this delusional movement you think you're helping by posting on drug forums online. Beyond that, everything I wanted to say has already been said, but, as usual, you aren't listening

It's also REALLY REALLY obnoxious that you keep slipping in implicit (or sometimes quite overt) putdowns on users of drugs you don't personally enjoy and perpetuating nasty stereotypes about "street drug criminals." That shit doesn't fly here. Stop it.

 

[Teotzlcoatl]

Hey man, I never said it was ok anybody got arrested.

I think what happened with BBB was horrible, tho I do think the owner was being irresponsible.

^Yeah I definitely don't understand how the lawmakers can make a living being illegal, plant or animal (in the case of bufotenine-producing toads). Its a travesty really.

and THAT is my simple argument.... That all plants should be legal and at this point... nothing more.

THAT AT THIS POINT in the social perception of intoxicants outside of alcohol and tobacco it is OUR BEST BET to push for the legalization of ONLY plants at the current time... perhaps in another 50 years we will see "other" progress... if people still wish to peruse it.

In my own personal opinion, I extend that same notion to all forms of matter. I think as human beings, the ability to possess and/or utilize any esoteric form of matter should be our birth-right (provided we don't use that matter to harm anyone). Just my opinion.

A worthy opinion, but I respectfully disagree. This arguement comes up often and I think it's very interesting philosophically and socially. All we create is natural? But is it organic? What IS natural?

 

[solistus]

I was referring to your comment on page one that anything besides a plant is "fair game" to be made illegal. Frankly, I find that view abhorrent and find it bizarre that you, who clearly agrees at least that legal prohibition of natural entheogens is an outrage and totally contrary to a society which values personal liberty, seem to have the view that "the law" has some kind of inherent moral authority, and that those who become "criminals" through nonviolent drug "offenses" are somehow your enemy. Maybe I was extrapolating too much, and I'm sorry for the overly hostile tone, but you say a lot of things that at least sound very disrespectful to those who use drugs you don't personally use. The way you simply laugh off any suggestion that maybe not all users of amphetamines, opiates, etc. are hopeless degenerate junkies or ignorantly destroying their lives is offensive to a lot of us here. I've debated with you enough elsewhere about your closed-minded views on synthetics. I don't care if you hold the silly neo-colonialist "keep it natural and be like a shaman, maaan" view for yourself, but I don't like how much you proselytize *against* the entheogenic tools others choose to use. Can't you keep your bigoted opinions of other classes of drug users to yourself? How does it help the legalisation movement to promote stereotypes about other parts of drug subculture even as you try to beat back stereotypes of your preferred niche? Spreading specific, helpful harms reduction info about specific synthetics you feel are dangerous would be productive. Posting over and over again that anyone who uses non-natural psychedelics is "doing it wrong" is just going to make you more and more unpopular around here until you have another forum ban to brag about on your own site and obliviously reference yet again when people point out how annoying and arrogant it is to keep referencing your roles on other forums.

Oh, I know I said we've already had this debate, but it bears repeating: claiming that natural drugs are categorically safe and that synthetics are categorically unsafe is utterly asinine and empirically false.

 

[Teotzlcoatl]

good post solistus

I was referring to your comment on page one that anything besides a plant is "fair game" to be made illegal.

I simply don't think all drugs should be openly legal, but I do think they should be decriminalized.

The addicts need help and the drug lords and king pins need to be locked up.

The way you simply laugh off any suggestion that maybe not all users of amphetamines, opiates, etc. are hopeless degenerate junkies or ignorantly destroying their lives is offensive to a lot of us here.

Perhaps your not all like that but some are... the problem I have with it is the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure with total disregard to one's own health and the people around them. Perhaps some use these drugs responsibly... some... but they are likely few... BUT... what does it teach them? What GOOD comes from it? My goal is to prove to people that good, actual pure happy butterflies and fucking sunshine comes from OMFG drugs! And the good I'm talking about is the good you see after somebody takes Iboga to cure heroin addiction, or takes Ayahuasca to deal with their depression or uses Peyote and meets God... you don't met God or really learn much of anything on drugs like heroin... you just FEEL good, but that doesn't mean it's good.

 

[solistus]

You're a confusing one, all right

I suspect we'd get along a lot better in general if you posted more about the psychedelics you do appreciate and less about why you don't appreciate the ones you don't. Some of the threads you've started are very informative. Hostility and snark aside, what I'm really trying to say is: post more of that kind of thread and less of this and you'll have a more positive influence and role here at BL PD. Just my two cents.

 

[Teotzlcoatl]

Well thank.

Ya that last one was just a big cluster-fuck ramble.

The plants provide all... another thing I'm trying to tell people is you don't NEED anything but the plants! They can provide almost any experience you can imagine! From Khat to Opium and from Datura to Peyote!

 

[solistus]

There certainly are a wide variety of wonderful entheogenic experiences that require nothing more than some botanical knowledge and seeds or cuttings to get started for each and every human being to enjoy if they so choose, and I share your hope for a society some day in which that potential is realised. That said, there are experiences far beyond what you can imagine, and some of them involve synthetic compounds. There are safety issues to consider with less well known compounds, to be sure, but there's no need to come off as hostile to those who make that decision differently than you have. In my own experience, 2C-I and 2C-E have allowed me to explore the space first opened up for my by t. peruvianus, but the latter contains some alkaloid I am either allergic to or just react very badly to, and I can barely hold down enough cactus material for long enough to approach a faint +2. Is it the same experience? No, but it's very similar and can also be valuable. I'm also skeptical in general of claims to connectedness with shamanic rituals, beyond the empirical benefits of a compound with centuries of proven use with few physical side effects. I feel it would be almost disrespectful to pretend that any experience I, a middle class white 20-something college educated Westerner, arrange for myself is in any way connected to indigenous spiritual customs... The same indigenous cultures my people have all but wiped off the earth. I am thankful for the knowledge their rituals have passed on to all of us but I prefer to leave the ritual itself to their practice and apply the pharmacological knowledge to my own life situation. That said, if you find connection to some deeper meaning by framing psychedelic use as a return to shamanic roots, I have no qualms with that and wish you pleasant and enlightening experiences.

 

[gravitymonk]

"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

 

[Bob Loblaw]

LOL Rog :D

 

[PepperSocks]

Ahem; The Main Natural vs. Chemical/Synthetic Psychedelics thread

I wouldn't dare merge this thread in there. All I see is 3 pages of bickering with one person acting as a brick wall of dogma.

IME, Synthetics > "Natural", besides mescaline.

Simply less side effects, more clarity, able to reach higher states without crippling body effects.

Not to say organics don't have their place. For someone who needs to get the psychological shit kicked out of them and beg for mercy; I don't think there's anything better than psilocybe mushrooms.

 

[jamaica0535]

LSD is pretty non toxic.... It hasn't been around hundreds of years....

I respect my mind and body, but in the long run i think the smoking has harmed me more than any of the random alphabet soup mix of designer drugs i have eaten.

Generally if there is a significant toxicity, its made clear pretty quickly, information in this day and age travels really quickly.

So your pretty much down to a choice of cannabis, ayahuasca, mushrooms and cacti...

and even then the aya can fall out of your selection if you consider it to be an extraction/concentration.... MAOIs with a bad choice in diet or use of other drugs can be harmful....

field picked mushrooms, meh some can still kill you....

cacti, the whole purging thing is kind of funny.... I generally prefer drugs that don't make me nauseous....

Some of the synthetics are quite wonderful. LSD is a favorite. 2c-b is as well.

The smoked DMT experience is beyond any words, its too beautiful of a thing to tell people not to do it...

 

[Mercury (Hg)]

I believe that each of us have a DUTY to protect these plants[.]

Fuck the plants. The fact that many psychoactives can be found in nature is incidental (and nothing more.) It's convenient, but there isn't a difference between an "organic" molecule and a synthesized one. A molecule is a molecule.

Go read about the history of organic chemistry, what it initially was, and what it's become today.

I think your intentions are good, but you're so far off the map you're not going to do anything worthwhile for the drug culture. Your logic is completely fucked, every point you've brought up is completely fucked, and your beliefs are completely fucked.

For example:

1) Does it come directly from natural/organic botanical sources? Is it a plant?

Datura is a plant. It contains psychoactives (although its means of activity are far different from what you'd find with other hallucinogens.)

2) Does it have a long history of human use? How many years has it been in human usage?

Length of use is irrelevant to a substances safety. Completely irrelevant. Go read the difference between causation and correlation. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, go fall on a stick.

3) Does it's history of human use show that it is an effective psychoactive?

Same as #2, although this deviates even more. Where are you pulling this shit out from?

4) Does it's history of human use show that it is relatively safe and non-toxic?

Containing a definition within a definition is illogical. You're not very intelligent.

5) Is this substance completely non-addictive and/or non-habitat forming?

The only valid criteria you've listed, however because it is standalone, it isn't correct in identifying "safe" psychoactives.


I refer to entheogens as psychoactives, simply because they are one in the same. I don't particularly believe in the notion of entheogens, however. You're extremely biased in regard to unnatural and natural sources of psychedelics.

Don't argue with me. I know what kind of person you are. Everything you say will either be fullout denial, a sidestep, or indirect.

 

[Teotzlcoatl]

Containing a definition within a definition is illogical. You're not very intelligent.

How should I word it so it makes sense?

 

[Mjäll]

fuck the plants.

:d .

 

[Solipsis]

Even though I resent the attitude, I think what is overlooked is that it's not so much that drugs Teo values are natural, but that incidently because they are natural and have been around, they have a longer history of human use. If one would select only the drugs from those that have been more or less proven safe over all that history of use, which is thus empirically shown, then harm is certainly minimized. Take mescaline for instance.

I have said before that if his point would be unfolded in these alternative wordings, that Id tend to agree. But it's definitely confusing since it implies some prejudice considering natural or synthetic.

Following this ^ 2C-B should also be considered quite safe since so very many people have tried it. And moreover, they have tried it and with the modern media scary adverse effects or indication thereof would be communicated around the world in no time at all!

Which brings me to an important point, Teo. Don't overestimate natural entheogens used by shamans for centuries because if they are not really safe, those shamans would definitely interpret that as a sign that those suffering from ill effects do not have a pure soul or something. Which is exactly what they think about ayahuasca nausea. I do have respect for shamanism and I've read enough about the subject. But they do tend to think in superstitious and magical terms to compensate for lacking a good monitoring system or analytical data. And records of adverse effects would easily be lost in history.

So to summarize: do not glorify ethnobotanics that have a long history but are secretly still shrouded in mystery. And secondly, try to accept synthetics that have been used by so many people that this counts just as well as a sufficient history of human use!

Thanks for trying to make your point which somewhere isn't quite as ridiculous as you present it, its good that you want to reduce harm but you can leave every person here alone who knowingly decides to try a compound with a shorter history of use.

Rattling our cages seems to produce a couple interesting posts in this thread but other than that it totally wears me down.

 

[Qnick]

It's also REALLY REALLY obnoxious that you keep slipping in implicit (or sometimes quite overt) putdowns on users of drugs you don't personally enjoy and perpetuating nasty stereotypes about "street drug criminals." That shit doesn't fly here. Stop it.

The addicts need help and the drug lords and king pins need to be locked up.

This seemed particularly funny to me.

Good thing for us you're here to show us the light Teo. I don't know how I'd be able to make an educated decision for myself, I'm glad you're in the mood to make choices for everyone.