• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

How do we want to handle the Synthetic Discussion in CD?

Sega420 said:
im gonna go out on a limb and be brutally honest, personally i dont think it should be allowed in CD. its "CANNABIS - DISCUSSION"
Click to expand...
Actually, CD is for "Intelligent discussion of basic and advanced cannabis related topics". It seems apparent that pretty much everyone in this thread failed to read this. :\
Synthetic cannabinoids are related to cannabis.
 
Taryth said:
My my, Sega, aren't we just full of false analogies and straw-men today?

"God" also made arsenic, humans invented modern medicine-
Who do you trust?
See, I can do it, too! So please stop and lets leave the childish comments at the door.
Click to expand...


mate, theres absolutely no need to be a fucking douche.


you know what i meant by that statement, dont be a wee smartass.
we have a term we like to use here in Scotland -

get it right up ye

bush_finger_flip.jpg
 
delta_9 said:
Actually, CD is for "Intelligent discussion of basic and advanced cannabis related topics". It seems apparent that pretty much everyone in this thread failed to read this. :\
Synthetic cannabinoids are related to cannabis.
Click to expand...

I'll admit to a bit of sloth- I didn't read that. I'm glad it reads in my favor, though :\

Even without that, though, it seems fairly obvious that synth. cannabinoids should be left to CD.

Sega420 said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha =D
 
Roger&Me said:
Certainly not. Its neither semantic nor a nuance. Its a conceptual and fundamental difference.

Cannabis is an angiosperm that produces a wide array of psychoactive terpenes.

The synthetic cannabinoids we're discussing may interact with the human endocannabinoid system, but aside from that they bear no similarity to cannabis in any way. The majority of synthetic cannabinoids are not terpenes but indoles and some may be dangerous. They have a very short history of use in humans, unlike cannabis which has been used for millenia.

This isn't an issue of denying information, but rather of how to categorize information.
Click to expand...

Using this logic though, why include things like 2c-* compounds in PD? They only have a short history of human use, and are not really related to those active compounds found in psychedelic plants and fungi(except mescaline & a few related compounds). What they have most in common with "traditional" psychedelics across the board(whether it's tryptamines, phenethylamines, or ergolines) is their mechanism of action. Likewise, what the JWH compounds have most in common with those active compounds in cannabis is their mechanism of action.

And I would hardly say that cannabis yeilds a "wide array" of psychoactive compounds. Out of the 65 or so "natural" cannabinoids, I could count the ones with activity on one hand.
 
delta_9 said:
Actually, CD is for "Intelligent discussion of basic and advanced cannabis related topics". It seems apparent that pretty much everyone in this thread failed to read this. :\
Synthetic cannabinoids are related to cannabis.
Click to expand...

What does "related" really mean though?

The cannabinoids produced by the cannabis plant are terpeno-phenolic compounds, and synthetic cannabinoids are aminoalkylindoles. Technically the "synthetic cannabinoids" aren't even cannabinoids per the term's definition: they are CB1 ligands.

IMHO CD has always been for discussion of topics related to the Cannabaceae clade of plants.
 
Eh, definitions are always different depending on where you get them. However, to me a cannabinoid is either a compound found naturally in those plants of the cannabis genus(the Cannabaceae family would include hops too ;)), found in the nervous systems of humans/mammals, or those compounds which show activity at cannabinoid receptors.
 
delta_9 said:
Using this logic though, why include things like 2c-* compounds in PD? They only have a short history of human use, and are not really related to those active compounds found in psychedelic plants and fungi(except mescaline & a few related compounds). What they have most in common with "traditional" psychedelics across the board(whether it's tryptamines, phenethylamines, or ergolines) is their mechanism of action. Likewise, what the JWH compounds have most in common with those active compounds in cannabis is their mechanism of action.

And I would hardly say that cannabis yeilds a "wide array" of psychoactive compounds. Out of the 65 or so "natural" cannabinoids, I could count the ones with activity on one hand.
Click to expand...

Haha what do you mean "except mescaline and other related compounds". Those 'related compounds' are the other (possibly boundlessly large number of) possible phenethylamine psychedelics. Its a huge and expansive category.

Additionally, according to recent research (posted recently in ADD) the mechanism of action for psychedelics may vary much more than we once though-- even between structurally similar compounds.

I concede that you do have a valid point. It could be categorized either way. My view is rooted in the practical issue that PD regulars probably have a higher level of access to synthetic cannabinoids than CD regulars (due to them being sold alongside other unresearched psychedelics) and, I believe, are more knowledgeable in regards to them as well.

delta_9 said:
(the Cannabaceae family would include hops too ;))
Click to expand...

We could totally use more hops discussion around here! :D <3 (no but seriously, try vaping some hops sometime. you might find it subtly but pleasantly relaxing).
 
Roger&Me said:
Haha what do you mean "except mescaline and other related compounds". Those 'related compounds' are the other (possibly boundlessly large number of) possible phenethylamine psychedelics. Its a huge and expansive category.
Click to expand...
Yes of course there is an endless number in theory, but how many have we isolated from natural sources?
Roger&Me said:
Additionally, according to recent research (posted recently in ADD) the mechanism of action for psychedelics may vary much more than we once though-- even between structurally similar compounds.
Click to expand...
Now this I'm interested in. :) I'll have to look into this.

Roger&Me said:
I concede that you do have a valid point.
Click to expand...
As do you. And I definitely agree that PDers are more suited to handle these drugs and would probably also be better equipped to answer some of the tough questions about them. I'm just not sure PD is the place to do it.
 
IMO the answer is obvious - keep it in the Big & Dandy in PD. There's already a lot of good information in there from people with a lot of experience who know what they're talking about. Sorry but it's undeniable that discussion is going to be more intelligent in PD than here.

I think that where it 'belongs' is irrelevant - this is a harm reduction site so discussion should go wherever is most conducive to that aim.
 
There is no reason to move cannabinoid discussion out of this forum. You should be looking for ways to bring more intelligence to the forum, not corral people into other forums. There's nothing psychedelic about most synthetic cannabinoids that cannabis sativa doesn't do better. It would only make sense to discuss synthetic cannabinioids in 'cannabis discussion' or 'other drugs' if you ask me.

Personally when I think of cannabis, I think of its effects, not the plant itself. This isn't overgrow, there's barely any growing discussion at all in this forum, it's all about ingestion and the cannabinoid agonist effects.
 
orangescrewpen said:
It is hard to find the information you want by searching through the thread. Indeed, any search requires one to have specific topic to be searching on. A multipage thread, to me, makes it harder to simply browse for information. It would seem to work much better to have separate threads for separate topics to enable causal browsing.
Click to expand...

I know this isn't Support, but I agree wholeheartedly. If I search for something, I skip over the 'mega' threads because they're impossible to sub-search quickly. It takes many Advanced Search within a search queries to drill down to the info you need; and Bluelight forces you to wait like 45 seconds between searches. So to find all the relevant info on a certain subject which is hidden within a mega thread can take like 5 minutes or more. If the threads are small and specific, and you can tell the thread's content by looking at the title alone, searching takes seconds.
 
Coolio said:
There is no reason to move cannabinoid discussion out of this forum. You should be looking for ways to bring more intelligence to the forum, not corral people into other forums.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%
Very well said :)
Coolio said:
Sounds like a simple renaming of the forum would solve all the problems.
Click to expand...
Even this isn't necessary. As I mentioned, a short description of CD is there for everyone to see and explains the forum very nicely. Synthetic cannabinoids are quite at home here.
 
I think they should be in PD. I've never tried them and I don't have anything against them but they aren't cannabis and this is Cannabis Discussion. Research chemicals seem to fit in better in PD.
 
MistaJeff said:
I think they should be in PD. I've never tried them and I don't have anything against them but they aren't cannabis and this is Cannabis Discussion. Research chemicals seem to fit in better in PD.
Click to expand...

How does discussion of something like JWH-018 fit in Psychedelic Drugs? It's not really a psychedelic drug at all.
 
IMO cannabis fits in very nicely in PD but there is enough discussion about it to warrant a specific forum for it. There are only a few threads on JWHs and those can easily be contained in PD. Are you guys saying that the recreational cannabinoids aren't psychedelics? That just seems silly to me.
 
I really only like to consider the 5-HT2a agonists to be psychedelics. Tryptamines, PEAs, LSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top