• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Endochemicals and their roles in medicine

monstanoodle

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
10,909
Location
T'Norf
We have a lot of endogenous chemicals in us that we can manipulate with many chemicals on the earth. I guess i'm referring to "natural" chemicals on the earth; Cannabinoids, Opiates, Psychedelic Alkaloids et al.

Got me thinking about the moral and ethical aspects of their use in medicine.
A huge chunk of me agreed that seeing as they are there, they must have been put their by the Master Of Intelligent Design, or god if you'll call it that, and it is in respect to the MOID to use these chemicals to better ourselves and our existence.

All the chemicals that law is not allowing pharmacists to work with, that could play some of the most vital rolls in health and psychology, is somewhat, in an extreme view, complete blasphemy to whatever it is that created us.
Even it just broke wind and chaos theory brought that break in wind to a well developed ecosystem and universe.

Anyway, i've ranted enough. So Discuss!
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-amanitin

^From poisonous amanita death cap mushrooms

They are natural.

I guess they were intentionally put on the earth just within spitting distance of individuals "god" didn't like so they would stupidly eat them and die.

Natural by definition does NOT automatically = safe. [That goes for anything]

[btw I am referring to the death cap mushrooms Amanita phalloides which are ACTUALLY deadly - please do not confuse them with amanita muscaria - one will die]
 
While what you're saying makes perfect sense Reminisant B, he wasn't talking about toxic substances.
monstanoodle said:
Cannabinoids, Opiates, Psychedelic Alkaloids et al.
He was speaking of improving your quality of life through mind-expanding experiences, not killing yourself or others. You took him out of context.
___________

While I understand what you're saying Monstanoodle, I don't think it'd exactly be a "blasphemy." If someone refuses to try drugs, that's their personal choice, and I don't think they should be reprimanded for that.

And although it may seem wrong to outlaw some of these substances, the ones who want to do them still do. Have you read the tragedy Antigone by Sophocles? I think this might relate to your mindset on this subject.

Also, wouldn't the "MOID" be angered by the separation of church and state?

When it comes down to it, nobody can judge a "God's" reaction or point of view. "God" and religion are subjective and personal things, in my opinion. I think they should be kept as such.
 
I don't know about ID, but there are endogenous counterparts for many psychoactives. One class that comes to mind is beta-carbolines, like norharman which may play a role in critical/day-to-day processes.
 
^I concur, send this thread out of here, drugs have been evolved by plants as ways to mess you up and discourage you from eating them, plain and simple. Sure your silly self can drive a car after a bonghit, but if you were out hunting a mastadon, you wouldn't want to have eaten some ganja laced sabre-toothed tiger chops now would you?
McKenna fans can kiss my ass too.
 
kidamnesiac said:
^I concur, send this thread out of here, drugs have been evolved by plants as ways to mess you up and discourage you from eating them, plain and simple. Sure your silly self can drive a car after a bonghit, but if you were out hunting a mastadon, you wouldn't want to have eaten some ganja laced sabre-toothed tiger chops now would you?
McKenna fans can kiss my ass too.

hahaha awesome
 
S2K said:
While what you're saying makes perfect sense Reminisant B, he wasn't talking about toxic substances.

indeed.

Also i'm not saying i believe in god, y'know, the old beardy fellow. But there's definitely something out there. x-files feem toon comes in[/I

kidamnesiac said:
^I concur, send this thread out of here, drugs have been evolved by plants as ways to mess you up and discourage you from eating them, plain and simple.

fair enough. that's you're POV. Anyway, a massive chunk of my thread has been neglected. What do you think of the moral aspects of using chemical analogues that are forbidden by law?

christ people are testy these days... 8)
 
this is not the forum to discuss the morals of drug use, sorry
people in here get testy when you post materials not in line with the purpose of the forums
 
??????????

What?! Oh come on...

Can i have a official statement from someone of control to confirm this?

Look at the whole of the Community section and tell me the same for that.
A good % of that is just people having a laugh, sharing information / interests, pondering and generally doing what they feel (to the confines of the rules).

Arts and Entertainment section - the same

This is exactly the place to discuss drug morals. Would you rather i go to facefuck or myspaz and try get an adequate response from there?
 
no, of course bluelight is for this, the forum Advanced Drug Discussion is not the place for this. philosophy and spirtituality may be better, just look for yourself

see the rules

* 4 - Don't post things that don't belong here

This forum was created to discuss things which don't fit in any other. Examples of things we want to see are:

* Share something you have found in a peer-reviewed journal and present it for open discussion. A full abstract should be provided at a bare minimum. This is similar to the Drugs in the Media format.
* Review/summarize a series of at least two related peer-reviewed articles and present summaries in a "for your information" format.
* Present a "problem" that you are trying to answer. Include what you have come up with so far and ask for assistance completing the solution.
* Present accepted facts and explore what (if anything) can be extrapolated beyond what is known.
* Present two supported theories that seem to be in conflict with each other and debate the relative merits of each.
* Present any topic that you feel fit in with this forum.
 
S2K said:
If someone refuses to try drugs, that's their personal choice, and I don't think they should be reprimanded for that. {i entirely agree and this never uttered it's head in my OP}....

Also, wouldn't the "MOID" be angered by the separation of church and state?

{as far as i'm concerned the "MOID" doesn't even regard churches as significant}

When it comes down to it, nobody can judge a "God's" reaction or point of view. "God" and religion are subjective and personal things, in my opinion. I think they should be kept as such.

I'm really really really not talking of "god's" views and don't know where that came from. Just personal views on the use of drugs in medicine and restriction on experimentation.
The MOID thing was merely a rant.
 
A huge chunk of me agreed that seeing as they are there, they must have been put their by the Master Of Intelligent Design

I think it was that sentence that seeded the talk of god/"omnipresent intelligent being" being involved.

Just personal views on the use of drugs in medicine and restriction on experimentation.

What drugs are you talking about? and in what context?

There are quite a few!

If you mean psycadelec drugs - sure I think more research in their medical use is a good thing (or fewer restrictions/red tape so allowing more trials).

Personal experimentation of ANY drug - Deciding controls/restrictions/legislation/legalisation etc is one very complicated topic and can be discussed for hours. Personally I think legalising drugs is the most beneficial (and so reduce funding to organised crime being one of the main benefits) - I certainly don't think it's ideal though - certain people will unfortunately f*£k their lives up but overall it's better than the alternative where many peoples lives are f*£ked up because of the war on drugs.

I appologise if I have got the wrong end of the stick but this doesn't really seem like advanced drug discussion material. ->More like philosophical or regional.
 
Last edited:
Are you talkin about ligands?

Regardless I agree this should be removed from ADD and put into spiritual discussion

I'm sorry this just this thread is entirely philosphical, and as such belongs elsewhere
 
Top