• 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

On Extraction and Synthetic Drugs

Status
Not open for further replies.
You argue that having a very long period of human use makes them proven to be quite safe while newer drugs are more of a risk. This is true to a certain degree but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try new materials. It does mean we should be more cautious and decisive about which ones we take and how we use them..

What about the first people to take these plant drugs 1000s of years ago? Weren't they taking a HUGE risk by ingesting various concoctions they found growing around them? I wonder how many died because they had no idea what they were doing and ingested a dangerous plant. Weren't these people, the pioneers of your beloved entheogen using culture, taking huge and unnecessary risks as well?

In fact, we are actually in a much better position now to try to identify new drugs(synthetic or natural) and determine whether they are safe or not before ever ingesting them because of our extensive knowledge of pharmacology and the human body.

These pioneers didn't stop when they found one thing that worked either, they continued to try many different plant drugs and take huge risks because they thought it was worth the risk of DEATH to find a new conduit to unique spiritual and profound experiences. I'm not saying I agree with this but I also don't say it is wrong. It is a personal choice.

Some people have the urge to experiment and search for new and profound experiences and we are in a much better position today to do this than shamans ever were, especially the pioneers who really had no idea what they were taking AT ALL.

People will always be trying to push the envelope to find something new and unique. It is human nature. If they hadn't, we would never have extracted pure DMT which, whether you agree with me or not, is IMO one of the most profound and awe inspiring experiences to be had. In fact, the only ones we did discover would have been purely by accident (which is actually almost certainly how we first learned of the effects of mushrooms).

It is your PERSONAL DECISION whether you want to pursue that and to what degree. I personally take a moderate stance on this because I value my health but I also crave novel experiences. I will never be the first to try a drug and I like to know that a fairly good amount of people have used that drug before me without any serious adverse effects but I don't require it to have been used for 1000s of years and neither did the first shamans.

Drugs like 2C-I/2C-B/2C-E have been used by quite a few people and there have been no indications that they are dangerous in reasonable dosages. Actually, all data points to them being quite safe. You are not taking a huge risk by trying these drugs at this point and you can minimize the chances even further by patiently working your way up to an effective dose instead of diving right in without testing the waters.

Your argument that the safest path is to only take these proven and time tested drugs holds some water. But it is not wrong or even stupid to want to try new things and expand our horizon of possible experiences. Actually, without this pursuit of novel experiences, many of your precious entheogens would never have been discovered.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

OMFG YOU ACTUALLY READ MY POSTS!


What about the first people to take these plant drugs 1000s of years ago? Weren't they taking a HUGE risk by ingesting various concoctions they found growing around them? I wonder how many died because they had no idea what they were doing and ingested a dangerous plant. Weren't these people, the pioneers of your beloved entheogen using culture, taking huge and unnecessary risks as well?
Click to expand...

I'm glad those people 1000s of years ago ate those plants and figured it out for me so I don't have to! As I said... if y'all wanna be guinea pigs, go ahead.

Ya saw my criteria for which psychoactive are safe...

Make up your own little check list and show it to me! Tell me how YOU determine what is safe!

Or do y'all just eat drugs until you die or get high? :)
 
LOL you can be incredibly condescending. So it was good then but you sneer at it now? Give me a fucking break dude.

I don't need to make a "check list". I already stated what my own personal criteria for safe drug usage is and it requires no delusional distinction between synthetic and natural drugs. A drug doesn't need to be used for 1000s of years to be considered relatively safe especially in this day and age were we have a much better idea of what will be toxic and what won't. We don't have perfect knowledge but we are certainly a hell of a lot better off than the shamans were.

Get over yourself. There's no need to be a dick when someone doesn't agree with you. You said earlier that you weren't going to be making many friends with your argument so you might as well be an asshole. That really helps get your point across and demonstrates a very enlightened attitude 8)

People may not agree with you but that won't cause them to resent you. Acting like a a dick will. You're certainly making an ass of yourself when you speak to people that way.
 
Last edited:
Solipsis said:
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. :|
Click to expand...

^THIS

Teo, Just behave, share your views, and accept the fact that on this site the majority of people use synthetic drugs and we try to minimize the harm in using these substances.

You wont get anywhere calling us druggies and such.

And yes we take drugs to get high aswell as other reasons. Your reasons for taking them are not anymore right than ours.

And i have heard of shamans trying modern psychedelics and calling them good medicine.

You just come of as stubborn and biased.
 
ok.

I'd really like to know what y'all use to determine how safe a psychoactive is..

please share?

what set of questions would be reasonable?
 
Teotzlcoatl said:
ok.

I'd really like to know what y'all use to determine how safe a psychoactive is..

please share?

what set of questions would be reasonable?
Click to expand...

I believe the truth may be too strange to be believed or even considered. It is an understatement to suggest that our primate brain could under no circumstance process such information. Our only link is through the conscious mind, pure.

In other words: We will never know for sure which chemicals, naturally occuring or synthetic, are safe or unsafe and to what extent. If you feel wrong about a certain substance STAY AWAY FROM IT, that is intuition... something too often overlooked in our modern rational world. Otherwise any other actions you perform are basically all stabs in the dark because it is impossible to recreate the same precise experiment twice. Any expected results at 100% precision is flawed.

Otherwise said: The sun could burn out and not rise this morning. It would be a traumatic event for all earth species and we don't really think about it but IT COULD HAPPEN. The reality is that it is almost infinitely unlikely that it will happen tomorrow and so we can assume that there will be a sunrise again and again, day after day. So in the same idea that the sun could burn out, I suppose LSD-25 at a reasonable dosage COULD KILL YOU, although it is infinitely unlikely that it will.

Bottom line: If you want to stay 100% safe - Don't take any drugs. Your best bet is to stay at home and spend time posting things on online forums. That is pretty close to 100% but even then... You could spill your Mountain Dew on your powerbar and get electrocuted.

Same goes for STDs, you can protect yourself and be 99.5% safe.
Or just whack-off your whole life for that extra .5% of safety.

Your call...
 
There is no "list of questions" that would be appropriate. You have to look at empirical evidence for specific compounds, not make generalisations based on your inaccurate romanticised view of drugs and nature. I'm certainly not an empirical reductionist, science is the only way to know truth kind of guy, but it's certainly the best way to predict the likely physical effects of a well studied compound on the human body. The only reason I would say it's not unfair to say synthetics may pose a higher risk in general is because some of them haven't been around long enough or were banned too quickly upon discovery for extensive scientific research. LSD is a great example of a very well studied compound that is objectively far safer in every meaningful sense than many natural drugs with long histories of use - opium, khat, coca, beladonna, etc.

As for your #4 being nonsensical... Your list is supposed to tell us what standards a drug has to meet to be considered safe. Your #4 standard is basically "it's considered safe." In order to label a drug safe.... It has to have been labeled safe already? You haven't told us anything specific about what we should look for in a drug's history of use to decide whether that history shows that it is safe or unsafe. That's the whole point of most of our objections: the fact that a drug was used for a long time doesn't tell us anything really about its safety. If you only look at the various local traditional knowledge sources about khat, you would think it's a wonder drug with no side effects and that it's only bad if "mis"used by the "wrong" people. If you look at the objective empirical evidence, you will see that even native users show clear signs of degraded liver function, high risk of ulcer development, manic/depressive episodes which can become extremely severe on withdrawal and a host of more minor long term side effects after many years of use, and that it causes spikes in blood pressure and heartrate comparable to other recreational stimulants like amphetamines or cocaine (hey, also natural!). All that said, moderate khat use is probably not so risky for me to call it unsafe for consumption, but some might and I'm sorry but claiming it's healthier or safer than, say, LSD use is delusional to put it nicely.

It's not harms reduction to decree categories of drugs that should never be used and drug users who are all hopeless addicts or vile criminals. People make their own decisions. If you want to be a harms reduction advocate on the subject of less well known synthetics, start by reading the Safer Research Chemical User's Guide we already have, then think of any useful, accurate information that would help someone make educated decisions on their own. You sound like a DEA puppet every time a non-natural drug is brought up (and you now seem to enjoy bringing them up yourself just to restart this debate, like this thread).
 
^^^
Well, this is the guy that seems to think length of use is more important than any empirical evidence. I guess he just prefers quantity of information to quality in general ;)
 
Why dont you get off your fucking high horse. I wouldnt mind your statements if they were made by someone who truly, bona-fide believes these substances are gifts from a god, such as "Native Americans" or the Indigenous peoples of mexico, south america, etc. You just sound like a pseudoshaman, suburban, hippie gone too far, who chooses such a radical position on synthetic drugs with absolutely no fact behind your statements, then because he is not accepted by the "mainstream community" (in this case, what appears to be most of us in PD) uses exaggeration and bad attempts at persuasion along with scare tactics to force us to believe like you. It sounds like from your completely foolish attempts at "rationalizing" with us about why we shouldnt either use synthetic substances or have the choice to do so that you are just striving to be accepted by a community, since society has maybe rejected you for actions such as this, condemning and judging an entire group of people for a choice that you want to make, in this case ingestion of psychedelic drugs. You sound like almost a neo-prohibitionist, or at least you're promoting prohibition to an extent for no real reason, you are essentially saying we shouldnt or shouldnt be able to consume synthetic compounds because you disagree. Sounds like forcing an opinion on a group of people who are unwilling to think like you, because your opinion is not based in fact, or at least what is commonly accepted by the mainstream and even not mainstream scientific, medical and pharmacological community. Not that safety in use of psychoactive drugs has any one definition among the userbase, generally, the toxicity plays a large part in the determination of what is safe, LSD has not been shown to have major physical side effects, cause any physical damage nor brain damage. The LD50 is another thing that is used to determine what is "safe", the LD50 for LSD is massive, the equivalent of thousands of thousands of human doses. What do you define as safe, because LSD is remarkably nontoxic in terms of psychoactive substances. Why dont you clue us in on what makes natural drugs that concentration of alkaloid/active chemical cannot be determined without lab procedures (an invention of man, mind you). Again, i honestly fucking detest your kind in the drug community, except you dont even quote misinformation like most people i have known or dealt with whove condemned drugs on the basis of being synthetic. Technically, from a chemistry standpoint, because certain drugs, like amphetamine, methamphetamine and others are only semisynthetic in that synthesis is possible from natural precursors, in the sense that one could in theory extract the chemicals needed to manufacture a substance that does not occur in nature and make them from only natural precursors.
 
Last edited:
I find your discrimination against synthetic psychedelics to be rather offensive. In many ways drugs found in plants just cannot compare to a perfect human creation like LSD. In fact I have stopped ingesting things like p. cubensis mushrooms, salvia divinorum, nnDMT, and LSA containing seeds because of their inferiority to LSD.
 
Last edited:
Teotzlcoatl said:
ok.

I'd really like to know what y'all use to determine how safe a psychoactive is..

please share?

what set of questions would be reasonable?
Click to expand...


What receptors does it work via?

Has anyone prevously overdosed from it? What happened?

Does it resemeble and organic molecule with known effects? What can be extrapolated via that?

Teo, thnk about DMT vs DPT; the only difference is the propyl instead of methyl group. With such simple compounds, changes of that nature point to differing potency and differng longevty of action, with minimal change in generalised activity (that said, DPT is a lot different to DMT). The propyl group extends duratoion and changes effects, wthout creating toxicity.
 
MistaJeff said:
I find your discrimination against synthetic psychedelics to be rather offensive. In many ways drugs found in plants just cannot compare to a perfect human creation like LSD. In fact I have stopped ingesting things like p. cubensis mushrooms, salvia divinorum, nnDMT, and LSA containing seeds because of their inferiority to LSD.
Click to expand...

I hope you're joking.
 
LSD is a semi-synthetic by the way, and I think that DMT is either as good or better than LSD if I had to compare them. Shrooms are excellent but for slightly different purposes, they get therapeutic and serious easily, at least I do with them.
 
I find your discrimination against synthetic psychedelics to be rather offensive. In many ways drugs found in plants just cannot compare to a perfect human creation like LSD. In fact I have stopped ingesting things like p. cubensis mushrooms, salvia divinorum, nnDMT, and LSA containing seeds because of their inferiority to LSD.
Click to expand...

Hahaha... you must be working with shitty plants.

They're only good if you grow them and harvest them yourself... otherwise they are normally weak, stale and old.
 
Solipsis said:
I think that DMT is either as good or better than LSD if I had to compare them.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree. I'm one of LSD's biggest fans ever, its like my best chemical friend-- but...... compared to good ol' n,n-DMT, LSD is just like traveling in a little propeller-powered seaplane-- while DMT is instantaneous teleportation via wormhole. :D Totally different realms entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top