• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Good arguments for sticking only to natural drugs?

I agree with capstone about the pot and the meth, but I don't think it's because pot is natural and meth isn't. One is just toxic and horrible for you with lots of side effects and the other isn't... but not everything unnatural is horribly toxic. It just depends on what it does to your body and brain.
 
As with anything we ingest into our bodies, the more its processed, the less nutritional value it has. Same goes with drugs.

I'm going to simplify this here, as a comparison between pot and meth:

Pot grows from the ground, while meth requires poisonous chemicals.
Grow pot, the cops might kick in you door; cook meth, and you might blow yourself up.
Cannabinoids are naturally occurring in human hormones, while meth kills you.
One cannot OD on pot, while thousands every year from meth.
every sentence in this post is highly misleading, as well as the gist of the whole post, and the comparison used

there are poisons that naturally grew, there are nontoxic substances that we have to synthesize. the difference between synthetics and nonsynthetics is that synthetics evolved. otherwise, it just depends on the chemical groups and the overall structure

cocaine causes the same problems as meth, yet is natural. LSD is similarly non-lethal and non-poisonous like marijuana, yet is synthetic. it doesn't matter where the molecule came from, and it doesn't matter if poison is used in its creation: hydrogen and oxygen make water, but water is NOTHING like hydrogen or oxygen. the same applies even moreso to pharmacology

natural drugs are actually worse in a sense: their effects are less predictable, the dose is less certain, because there are so many similar chemicals (eg cannabidiol, cannabinol in addition to d9-THC). with a synthetic drug, you know the exact dose, and the only variation will come from external factors
 
Replace "pot" with "opium" and "meth" with "lsd" and fill in the rest of the sentences in turn, and you end up with things looking very different!

Drugs are drugs, regardless of whether the chemist that cooked them up with a human or a plant.
That said, i tend to trust synthetic chemicals more, simply because humans are far more precise as chemists* than plants are, so you are ingesting one chemical (well, a handful, considering the attention most RC labs seem to pay to purity), instead of hundreds or thousands of chemicals from dozens of classes of chemical.

*If i was employed as a chemist, and my boss told me to prepare some DMT, and i handed him a pile of pink-brown powder, i'd be fired on the spot, yet we put up with mimosa hostilis, which provides DMT to us in that form.
 
I enjoy a mushroom trip more than an acid trip. The former seems more 'earthy'. There may be some subconscious reasons as to why that is though.

Well, what if you took either 4-ho-dmt or 4-aco-dmt (the latter isnt natural but converts to psilocin), I think that its actually better to take the pure hallucinogen instead of eating mushrooms that fuck with your stomach and the trip is possibly better.

Also, I'd say opium is more addictive than heroin for example. It works both ways, I dont think it REALLY matters whether a chem is naturally occurring or not. Even benzos have been found in I think tomatoes? (correct me if im wrong)... Psilocin has a more "earthy" feel than lsd, I think thats all it is. I find some natural things to not feel so natural btw.. so in the end I dont think theres a true difference. I dont think natural things are "better for you" than synthetic things either, but thats a different story (natural psychs especially tend to be more harsh).

EDIT: There are some things, like ayahuasca, which I think probably should remain natural (that is, a traditional mimosa extraction and a natural maoi)... thats part of the "cleansing" experience for ayahuasca as I have heard. You can replace the MAOI with something that is synthetic and might not make you feel as sick but for ayahuasca this is part of the experience. I think theres a HUGE difference between smoked dmt and the full aya treatment, btw. But otherwise, I say theres no difference
 
Last edited:
It's better for the environment.

Go green with drugs.

~~~going green with drugs~~~~

****why plants-drugs are more responsible to consume***

If you grow and produce your own plant-drugs, your not funding gangs or terrorist.
Plant-drugs are more enviromentally friendly to produce than synthetic substances which require huge labs and lots of chemicals.
If you grow your own plant-drugs than you know what you are getting is pure quaility material.

More to come.
 
Drugs are drugs, regardless of whether the chemist that cooked them up with a human or a plant.

One huge difference is how long the substance has been around and interacting with humans. Plants have long histories of human usage which we can use to deduce weather or not those plants are safe to ingest.

Datura?.... no.

Cannabis?... yes.

Opium?... maybe.

The point is... with plant drugs they have been around long enough and humans have been exposed to them enough for us to draw meaningful conclusions!
 
My opinion: there are plenty of rational reasons why, in general, natural drugs may be safer or otherwise preferable in some ways. What is irrational is to treat natural drugs as inherently safe regardless of objective evidence (Teo gives the great example of datura, a perfectly natural drug that is probably not safe by most peoples' standards), or to treat all synthetics as categorically unsafe (LSD, for example, has a reasonably long and extremely well-studied and documented history of human use and is not known to be at all toxic in humans - one study famously referred to it as one of the most benign compounds known to man). If your decisions of which drugs to ingest are truly rational, then you need to evaluate the best evidence available for the specific drug you're interested in and decide if there's enough evidence of its safety to meet your personal standards. If you must come up with some general "system," I'd say being natural could qualify a drug for a bonus point but it should not be a prerequisite and it's quite clearly not the only thing you need to check. Black widow venom is 100% natural and organic but consuming large amounts of it would probably be a bad idea.
 
The point is... with plant drugs they have been around long enough and humans have been exposed to them enough for us to draw meaningful conclusions!
Well, wasn't the average life expectancy of hunter gatherers, the traditional users of plant drugs, around 40? I don't believe they kept extensive health records, nor did they conduct double blind placebo controlled trials. The history of pre-scientific societies using plant drugs means very little, as we cannot dissociate deleterious effects that owe directly to the use of these plants from the innumerable other harmful things these people were exposed to, nor do we have reliable records to factor out these confounding variables. With the exception of something like ephedra, a natural drug traditionally regarded as good medicine that is in fact pretty dangerous, there's very little data about the use and health effects of most plant drugs to draw any sensible conclusions.
 
What is irrational is to treat natural drugs as inherently safe regardless of objective evidence (Teo gives the great example of datura, a perfectly natural drug that is probably not safe by most peoples' standards)

you are correct, i always talk about how dangerous datura is, as we all know there are many poisonous plants, so of course not all plants are safe

Well, wasn't the average life expectancy of hunter gatherers, the traditional users of plant drugs, around 40? I don't believe they kept extensive health records, nor did they conduct double blind placebo controlled trials. The history of pre-scientific societies using plant drugs means very little, as we cannot dissociate deleterious effects that owe directly to the use of these plants from the innumerable other harmful things these people were exposed to, nor do we have reliable records to factor out these confounding variables. With the exception of something like ephedra, a natural drug traditionally regarded as good medicine that is in fact pretty dangerous, there's very little data about the use and health effects of most plant drugs to draw any sensible conclusions.

Dude that...

What?

Have you heard about the studies done on the peyote using peoples? They even did genetic testing to confirm if peyote had damaged the genes of generations of users.

The longer something has been in use, the easier it is to study it and see it's negative or positive effects. period.
 
The only real argument I can think of is natural drugs have a long history to establish if they are safe or not. Pot is, belladonna is not. Can anyone really say if 5-AIA is a safe alternative to MDMA or a more dangerous alternative to mephedrone? Not at this point (my money is on neither LOL),
 
Sure I've heard of the studies for peyote, as well as for ayahuasca. I said "there's very little data about the use and health effects of most plant drugs to draw any sensible conclusions." You just made a thread in Psychedelic drugs that list dozens upon dozens of plant drugs, most of which have not been subject to remotely as much scientific investigation as peyote. Peyote is an exception, not the rule.
 
Sure I've heard of the studies for peyote, as well as for ayahuasca. I said "there's very little data about the use and health effects of most plant drugs to draw any sensible conclusions." You just made a thread in Psychedelic drugs that list dozens upon dozens of plant drugs, most of which have not been subject to remotely as much scientific investigation as peyote. Peyote is an exception, not the rule.

Actually alot, if not most of the plants are my list have been studied to some degree and have been used by many in the west.
 
dont take this wrong-

but you had a dig at someone for taking LSD, a drug which is known to be completely physically safe,
yet on your list you named Amanita Muscaria, while culturally & historically significant,
is still very deadly if not prepared or consumed correctly.


there are many drugs, synthetic and natural, that are safe, and many that are not.

personally, i tend to go with what im comfortable with, what has less cons than pros, etc.
example-

i dont take ketamine or cocaine due to the health risks involved, as well as the highs being not my kind of buzz.

however, i would gladly take a handful of pure MDMA or pure Cocaine Hcl over a huge Amanita Muscaria cap any day.


Ayahuasca may be natural, and relatively safe, and hey, it might be a great psychotherapy tool,
but im probably never going to consume it as trying to stop the room spinning while my guts say hello to a bucket
for several hours doesnt seem like my idea of a nice time.



like i said, not having a go at you.

im simply stating that on both sides of the natural/synthetic fence, there are naughty offenders.
 
Actually alot, if not most of the plants are my list have been studied to some degree and have been used by many in the west.
Define "studied to some degree" relative to the scientific study of the effects of FDA approved synthetic pharmaceuticals. Most studies of natural drugs are commissioned by the drug's retailers because it's hard to get grants to extensively study natural drugs only supported by anecdotal claims. False claims, suspect methodology in favor of outcomes that will sell, extremely small population sizes, obscure background "research" liberally re-interpreted, lack of scientific rigor and longitudinal analysis in the studies is rampant. And that's for the natural drugs that make it to retail shelves.

Research into natural highs, whether many in the West have used them or not, for the most part is comparatively sparse and dubious even in relation to those studies, and few conclusions can be drawn about them beyond what their acute subjective effects are and what a few blunt measures of physiological reactions reveal (heart rate, BP, etc.). In any case, their long history of use doesn't mean much because there was no attempt to isolate and control their study in traditional societies and, at best, the rare statistically significant and methodologically sound support for their health effects is sub-par compared to FDA approved synthetic drugs (with a few obvious exceptions like cannabis, that is).

Also, at least in American culture, their is a strong bias against synthetic chemicals of all kinds relative to natural ones. For example, simply saying that an odor is "synthetic" will on average lower the rating people give it indicating how much they like it compared to whether it's described as "natural" or nothing is said at all, independently of whether the odor is in fact natural or synthetic! We really need to second guess our intuitive judgments regarding synthetics because there is a confirmed and substantial psychological bias against them that operates independently of reason. Unconscious influences are constantly working in favor of valuing that which is perceived as natural.
 
Last edited:
At this point I am completely abstinent from synthetic chemicals (including simple things like Tylenol), I will only do natural medicines. I will explain the events that caused me to arrive at this personal choice.

I used to do a wide array of synthetic chemicals recreationaly, through the use of LSD I began to cultivate a sense of spirituality - my intentions in using medicines shifted from a recreational emphasis to a purely spiritual emphasis and focus. By spiritual I mean that the focus was placed on my own healing, learning more about myself, and the surrounding universe rather than a focus of fulfilling sensory desires at the expense of my own healing process. I found, as I continued my spiritual development, that many of the energies associated with synthetic drugs and synthetic drug culture were simply incongruous with the lifestyle I was trying to live.

I believe that when the natural plant medicine from the earth is taken and turned into a synthetic medication, the energy of it is completely changed. I believe a lot of this has to do with the intentions of the chemists and the other individuals who are facilitating the distribution of these substances.

When a plant medicine is grown directly from the earth, or grown by someone who puts tender care and love into it, the plant will maintain a very pure vibration that has been cultivated by the love and grace of our mother. These medicines, in their pure form, can show you things about yourself and provide you with absolutely amazing healing - when you used these medicines as they were intended to be used by our mother gaia, the quality of the vibration is extremely healing and if you are willing to do the work involved in the healing process these medicines will take you through, you can go to extraordinary places - far beyond any of the realms synthetic medications can take you to - in my experience at least.

On the other hand, my experience with synthetic medication has been that when man-kind chooses to manipulate the molecular structure of these plants they are often doing so out of a selfish intention, or at least an intention that is not as pure as the original vibration infused within the medicine. This applies particularly to drugs like cocaine, pharmaceuticals, etc, but I believe it also applies to psychedelics such as LSD, MDMA, etc.

The people responsible for creating and distributing drugs use alchemy to reconfigure the intention and the vibration of the molecules. Many major alkaloids that were originally in the plants are removed, throwing the medicine out of balance with it's natural form of manifestation. When you are consuming these drugs into your body, you are also consuming the intentions that have been infused within the molecular structure of the chemical in question.

I am of the opinion that man-kind is incapable, at least in this stage of our development, of chemically manipulating nature's natural medicine cabinet in a way that is healing. All we have done is created a distorted form of medicine that caters to our own desires and sensory gratification rather than our own healing. It has contributed to throwing us out of balance with nature, and we are no longer in harmony with the mother gaia on a collective level because of this and many other things.

One example of this - the Coco leave in South America that cocaine is made out of, in it's natural form it is one of the healthiest herbs you can eat, it is extremely beneficial to the natural constitution of your organism and it has many nutrients, especially for pregnant women - it is one of the healthiest herbs a pregnant woman can eat. On the other hand, when you take that plant, tear it apart, extract a specific part of it with the intention of making money, running drug cartels, and experiencing a stimulant effect that is pleasurable but ultimately unhealthy for the organism, then all of a sudden you have all of these problems that were not there before - people killing each other over it, people ODing, people getting addicted, etc, etc.

Anyway, my 2 cents, I will elaborate more if anyone needs clarification

Love and Blessings.
 
Last edited:
in a lot of villages in rainforesty areas, the men have coca chewing addictions that make em edgy though.
although i do agree, coca aint bad. coca and cocaine are 2 VERY different things.



& as well with coca, to get cocaine hydrochloride, they use
kerosene, epsom salts, gasoline, sulfuric acid, and a few more nasty things in the extraction process.

stick that up my nose?
no thank you, scarface, I'd rather chill with my blunt of homegrown ganja, and get steadily toasted for 12 hours
on something that would cost £10, as opposed to spending £40 on something that will be gone in 3 minutes
and make me hyper for an hour.
 
Top