• Find All Reports by Search Term
    Find Reports
    Find Tagged Reports by Substance
    Substance Category
    Specific Substance
    Find Reports
  • Trip Reports Moderator: Cheshire_Kat

Opiates at both ends

n3wt

n3wt

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 21, 2010
Messages
248
Location
Toronto, Canada
No this isn't a thread about insufflating and plugging at the same time.

I'm not someone who normally takes opiates, but in the past few weeks I had the chance to sample two at opposite ends of the potency scale (codeine and hydromorphone) and I thought I'd compare and contrast them from the perspective of an opiate naive person.

Codeine

The codeine came in the form of 5 generic 30mg codeine phosphate pills received from a friend to help me sleep after a stimulant binge. I took it in two separate doses, the first at 60mg, followed by 90mg the following night. I found both experiences dreamy, relaxed, and very euphoric. I was blown away by how much awesome I was able to get out of what I'd heard was the KMart opiate.

Hydromorphone

The hydromorphone came in the form of a 30mg HydroMorph Contin ground up and split between three opiate naive individuals and one person with a moderate tolerance. I was sceptical that a single pill could yield enough drug for four people, but boy was I wrong. I can't imagine what kind of pain you'd have to be in to have a real need for a monster pill like that. I did a couple milligrams at most, but it was more than enough. I found the hydro to be less sedating and dreamy than the codeine, but more overtly euphoric. I also found it more "druggie" than codeine for lack of a better word. The duration was much shorter and there was a marked peak and comedown. I felt a definite urge to redose as I felt the hydro wearing off, that hadn't been there with the codeine.

Honestly I was way more impressed with codeine than hydromorphone which I found fiendy and one-dimensional by comparison. The euphoric punch I got from the hydro felt empty without the dreamy relaxed sedation I got from the codeine, and it was over almost as soon as it began.

I doubt you hear too many people say they prefer codeine to hydromorphone, but that's definitely how I felt about it.
 
Interesting post. I can only assume you liked the effects of codeine more because it is a naturally occuring "true" opiate whereas hydromorph is a synthetic opioid.
 
SeVeReD said:
Interesting post. I can only assume you liked the effects of codeine more because it is a naturally occuring "true" opiate whereas hydromorph is a synthetic opioid.
Click to expand...

It probably has more to do with binding affinity differences as far as the receptor subtypes to. I'm unfamiliar with the opiate receptor subtypes or I'd give a guess on what those differences are. Anyway don't let that whole natural versus synthetic issue get into your mind, as its a red herring/false dichotomy. Chemicals are chemicals are chemicals, there's no difference from the origin of the compound.
 
SeVeReD said:
Interesting post. I can only assume you liked the effects of codeine more because it is a naturally occuring "true" opiate whereas hydromorph is a synthetic opioid.
Click to expand...

this is a stupid statement. where a drug comes from has no baring on its subjective effects. its like the whole "i only do natural drugs", "what like datura?"

the op might like poppy pod tea if he likes a euphoric opiate high that slowly fades out. and i can tell you it shits on codeine which you may now enjoy but over time certainly loses its lustre. poppy tea in moderate doses is physically euphoric, gives energy and is the best anti anxiety med for a difficult situation in small doses
 
pofacedhoe said:
this is a stupid statement. where a drug comes from has no baring on its subjective effects. its like the whole "i only do natural drugs", "what like datura?"

the op might like poppy pod tea if he likes a euphoric opiate high that slowly fades out. and i can tell you it shits on codeine which you may now enjoy but over time certainly loses its lustre. poppy tea in moderate doses is physically euphoric, gives energy and is the best anti anxiety med for a difficult situation in small doses
Click to expand...

I think he's saying that it is a naturally occuring opiate. Pretty logical. Think about whole food versus processed. Yeah processed tastes better at first but eating whole foods will give you a better overall experience start to finish. Codeine is extracted, not synthesized, therefore it's more natural. How does Datura relate to this and why is it stupid :?

This is an awesome report. I also find that from the naive perspective, the "weaker" preps like PST, Opium, Poppy Tea, Codeine, Morphine (even though I hate morphine), and even Kratom all have a more full and rounded experience. That's just the feel I get from them in general. Stronger opiates are much more filtered. Hydrocodone is right on the fence of being compulsive and oxycodone on up are all pretty hard. Totally subjective though. They all seem to highlight a certain area of the theoretical 'complete opiate experience'.

Similarly, I view all cathinones as being specifically targeted locations whereas MDMA would be the full map of those areas.

All in all, i've said nothing but the point is i find the codeine experience to be more of a fulfilling experience than hydromorphone also, but if i were to get an opiate it would definitely rather be hydromorphone because I have been tainted by abuse.
 
Crashing said:
I think he's saying that it is a naturally occuring opiate. Pretty logical. Think about whole food versus processed. Yeah processed tastes better at first but eating whole foods will give you a better overall experience start to finish. Codeine is extracted, not synthesized, therefore it's more natural. How does Datura relate to this and why is it stupid :?
Click to expand...

Okay, let me try to explain. The analogy of processed versus unprocessed foods does not hold. The reason is because the only way that a compound can be 'processed' is to alter its molecular structure through various synthetic methods. And thus since the structure is now different it is now a completely different compound instead of whatever the starting chemical was. So chemicals are chemicals. They can be made synthetically or extracted from a natural source. But if the chemical is the same, just produced by a different route (lab synthesis versus biologically catalysts synthesis), then the compound, having the same molecular structure by definition, is no different depending on how it is made. By definition, a chemical has the same molecular structure and atomic makeup no matter the method of creation. If there was a difference, it would mean that the number of atoms or their configuration in the structure of the molecule would be different, and thus it would cease to be the same chemical.

Would you say there's a difference between codeine when extracted from poppies and codeine from lab synthesis? Keep in mind that for it to be codeine, the structure MUST be the same. So what difference do you think there could be between two molecules of codeine, one synthesized in a lab and one from an extract of poppy? Is there a difference you can specify between, say, synthetic mescaline and mescaline extracted from cactus, or psilocin from a mushroom and psilocin produced in a lab?

The point of datura is that datura is a plant, so the compounds in it are by your definition 'natural'. But they're still incredibly harmful and bad for you to take!

This is an awesome report. I also find that from the naive perspective, the "weaker" preps like PST, Opium, Poppy Tea, Codeine, Morphine (even though I hate morphine), and even Kratom all have a more full and rounded experience. That's just the feel I get from them in general. Stronger opiates are much more filtered. Hydrocodone is right on the fence of being compulsive and oxycodone on up are all pretty hard. Totally subjective though. They all seem to highlight a certain area of the theoretical 'complete opiate experience'.
Click to expand...

Might I enquire as to what filtered means in the above context?

Similarly, I view all cathinones as being specifically targeted locations whereas MDMA would be the full map of those areas.
Click to expand...
Again, can you clarify what you mean by specifically targeted versus the 'full map', and what 'areas' are being mapped? They're all just different compounds, so they affect the receptors differently.

Please keep in mind, we're not trying to just your balls here, we're just trying to explain in different ways why there is no difference between a molecule synthesized in a lab and that same molecule synthesized by enzymes in a plant or fungus. By the very definition of what a molecule is, if the molecule produced in a lab and the one made in a plant's cells are indeed the very same compound, the molecules are by definition completely identical. If they weren't, they wouldn't be the same compound.

If you want further detail or have questions/desire clarifications, please feel free to PM me or post in this thread and ill do my best to help you out!

Cheers
D
 
Nice writeup. Codiene can be fun. HM only had in hospital, worked well yeah much stronger than codiene.
 
However, it is possible that Crashing is speaking about something else altogether. It could be that he/she doesn't mean that molecules of the same compound are somehow different depending on whether they are 'artificially' or 'naturally' synthesized, and instead is referring to the idea that compounds that are already extant in nature and are the products of natural selection are somehow healthier than compounds that are never found in nature and we instead invented by a chemist. whether that chemist has simply designed a compound based on the structure of a natural compound with added or removed atoms, like heroin (diacetylmorphine) and morphine, with morphine being natural but heroin being invented by somebody with the idea to add two acetyl groups to morphine.

This notion is also incorrect. It seems to revolve around the idea that compounds that are produced inside plant cells have existed since before Homo sapiens existed, and thus our bodies have had the entire span of time that is our evolutionary history to acclimate to these plant-produced compounds. This is flawed reasoning, because there are compounds that are produced 'naturally' that are highly toxic, while their synthetic derivatives that were invented by a chemist are wonderful, healthy chemicals. The prototypical example of this is ergotamine, the compound produced by the ergot grain fungus that can send people into stark raving mad delirium, or even kill. But by removing the complicated structure that is attached to the amide moiety and replacing it with two ethyl groups sticking off of the nitrogen in that amide group, we get LSD, which has truly magical effects, and more relevant to this discussion, has a *very* high therapeutic index. That is scientific speak for 'the amount you need to trip is very small, and the amount that would do physical harm to you is several orders of magnitude greater'. So overdosing on LSD will just make you trip balls, not kill you, whereas overdosing (or dosing at all really) on ergotamine will very likely do you physical damage.

So as you can see, and also taking datura as an example of a 'naturally' produced compound that is super toxic, it is easy to see that there is no correlation between whether a compound exists in nature in a plant, fungus, or animal, or not found in nature at all and instead is dreamed up by a chemist sketching clever ideas for the structures of potential compounds.

Again, if you wish for any clarification or would like to explain further what your thoughts are on why there would be a difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural' compounds, please do, here or via PM, and I'd be happy to talk about the subject.
 
Yeah i meant to say the way vitamins and nutrients are infused into processed foods the same way synth or extract chemicals are ingested. It's just not the same because the entire profile of the natural parent substance is absent.
 
Deinonychus said:
Okay, let me try to explain. The analogy of processed versus unprocessed foods does not hold. The reason is because the only way that a compound can be 'processed' is to alter its molecular structure through various synthetic methods. And thus since the structure is now different it is now a completely different compound instead of whatever the starting chemical was. So chemicals are chemicals. They can be made synthetically or extracted from a natural source. But if the chemical is the same, just produced by a different route (lab synthesis versus biologically catalysts synthesis), then the compound, having the same molecular structure by definition, is no different depending on how it is made. By definition, a chemical has the same molecular structure and atomic makeup no matter the method of creation. If there was a difference, it would mean that the number of atoms or their configuration in the structure of the molecule would be different, and thus it would cease to be the same chemical.

Would you say there's a difference between codeine when extracted from poppies and codeine from lab synthesis? Keep in mind that for it to be codeine, the structure MUST be the same. So what difference do you think there could be between two molecules of codeine, one synthesized in a lab and one from an extract of poppy? Is there a difference you can specify between, say, synthetic mescaline and mescaline extracted from cactus, or psilocin from a mushroom and psilocin produced in a lab?

The point of datura is that datura is a plant, so the compounds in it are by your definition 'natural'. But they're still incredibly harmful and bad for you to take!



Might I enquire as to what filtered means in the above context?


Again, can you clarify what you mean by specifically targeted versus the 'full map', and what 'areas' are being mapped? They're all just different compounds, so they affect the receptors differently.

Please keep in mind, we're not trying to just your balls here, we're just trying to explain in different ways why there is no difference between a molecule synthesized in a lab and that same molecule synthesized by enzymes in a plant or fungus. By the very definition of what a molecule is, if the molecule produced in a lab and the one made in a plant's cells are indeed the very same compound, the molecules are by definition completely identical. If they weren't, they wouldn't be the same compound.

If you want further detail or have questions/desire clarifications, please feel free to PM me or post in this thread and ill do my best to help you out!

Cheers
D
Click to expand...

You're looking way too far into my post, it's all just subjective metaphors of looking at the experienced effects differences. By filtered I mean, the effects are more specific, as it you take a poppy pod tea high for example, and extract the morphine and run synths until you end up with hydromorphone for example, the effects from hydromorphone feel filtered compared to Poppy tea and to a lesser degree codeine, don't they? If you don't think so then it's fair to disagree.

Full map, again i'm referring to the effect profile. There is no difference between chemical molecules technically but I'm saying the fact that codeine is found in the plant and extracted versus hydrocodone or morphone or heroin which are entirely synthetic. To me, the best way i can describe the more highly synthesized chemicals like oxymorphone., hydromorphone, fent, they feel more directed towards a specific effect. 4-EMC reminds me of the aphrodisiac aspect of MDMA, whereas mephedrone would define the euphoric property. If i IV oxymorphone, i get a different yet specific type of rush compared to IVing hydromorphone. The receptor site affected is the same so the opiate feeling is generally the same but the unexplainable specific difference is definitely there.

I can comfortably agree with the OP, that the high from the plant tea has the most rounded experience (most varying effects) and then extracted chemicals like codeine and morphine are next, followed by heroin which is synthesized quite easily, and way down the line as you get into more in depths synths with morphones, the effects are fewer and fewer, more directed and more potent in those areas. Does that make sense?

Regardless, in conclusion - In reality i find all substances to be natural, because i believe humans to be natural and therefore the products of our making follow as such. There is nothing on this Earth that is 'unnatural' in my opinion. Everything unfolds just as it should. But there does seem to be quite a difference when taking plants and extracts versus synthesized chemicals. It's just they way they feel when i take them, the science is no more in depth than direct experience.
 
Last edited:
Crashing said:
I think he's saying that it is a naturally occuring opiate. Pretty logical. Think about whole food versus processed. Yeah processed tastes better at first but eating whole foods will give you a better overall experience start to finish. Codeine is extracted, not synthesized, therefore it's more natural. How does Datura relate to this and why is it stupid :?
Click to expand...

because datura is natural and is unpleasant. because its contains a shitty drug. man made or from a plant or fungus has no bearing on the subjective effects of a drug.

a drug is a drug is a drug. if you synthesize cocaine in a lab it has the same cocaine effect as cocaine extracted from a coca plant.

poppy tea is a collection of alkaloids with a synergistic effect. not the same as either morphine or codeine in pill form which is what the op was talking about.

basically your argument is illogical and people have made the effort to explain why. if you cannot understand these points thats up to you...
 
^^ Yeah, I'm not 'looking way too far' into your post Crashing. My edit of that post specifically addresses things that are found in nature and things invented by man, and why there is no difference. You mention 'referring to the effects profile'. There is no difference in effect between a drug found in nature and one invented by man besides those aspects that are altered by whatever chemical substitution took place in the one invented in a lab.

Look, if you put things like N,N-methylethyltryptamine, or MET, into the substrate upon which a mushroom's mycelium grows, you get 4-HO-MET and 4-PO-MET. But you see, MET doesn't occur in nature, and neither do its four-position substituted analogues. This is because the enzymes that take DMT and phosphorylate it / add a hydroxy to it at the four position in mushrooms, the ones that make DMT into psilocin or psilocybin, are not selective. They are not picky. They will 4-substitute pretty much whatever N,N-disubstituted tryptamine they find and add shit upon the four position.

But wait... MET was invented in a lab by Shulgin, as was 4-HO-MET. Those two compounds occur nowhere in nature that we know of, and it is unlikely that something out there is making it without out knowledge as tryptamine containing plants are pretty well categorized as far as their various psychoactive products.

So if you take a molecule like MET that was invented and 'artificially' synthesized in a lab, feed it to a mushroom, and the mushroom makes 4-HO or 4-PO-MET out of it, are those products then natural? Or are they synthetic? They were invented in a lab, but it was discovered that you can trick some fungi into making it using bio synthetic pathways, 'naturally' producing it. So again, are the 4-subbed MET derivatives natural? Or are they still synthetic?

You mention that using opium or another poppy extract feels 'fuller' or 'rounder' than using semisynthetic opioids like hydromorphone. That's a given: there are hundreds of opiate compounds in the poppy, so unless you separate them into pure compounds, you will have hundreds of different drugs working at once on your receptors. Each of those compounds will have a slightly different affinity for various receptors, thus each of the hundred chemicals in the opium produces different effects. When all of them are working at once then of course you will feel a more complex high, you have potentially more than a hundred different compounds all stimulating your brain slightly differently.

But that is moot, it does not apply, because pure codeine is the drug in question here, not opium. So if you take opium and compare it to hydromorphone, the opium will feel more complex since it contains hundreds of active compounds. BUT, if you take opium and compare it to codeine, the opium will feel equally more rich and complex compared to codeine, because it's still a comparison of hundreds of drugs all at once against a single pure compound.

Telling me I'm wrong because I didn't understand what you actually said is not a spectacular idea. I mean, I ain't gonna do anything about it, but it makes you look closed-minded and stubborn. If you have anything *substantive* or *accurate* to say, doesn't matter which one, I will return to this thread, but otherwise I'm done trying to explain in calm, reasonable terms why you are mistaken. There is no shame in being mistaken. Being stubborn and ignorant on the other hand will win you no props here.

Good day to you sir.
 
Disregarding the old 'natural vs synthetic' discussion, I just wanted to say: thanks for this short report. It's interesting and insightful even for someone who doesn't really have any serious interest in opiods.
 
edit: Sorry I dont want to derail the thread with another snythetic/natural post. Thanks for the report. I am another substance adventurer who finds the stronger opiates undesirable in a sense, you arent alone.
 
Last edited:
Because most synth 'noids are full agonists, versus THC's partial agonism. Because buds/hashish contain a cocktail of various chemicals that influence each other's effects and that so happens to be a good combination. Pure delta-9-thc is a shitty drug too (Marinol)

Like Deinonychus said, a chemical is a chemical is a chemical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top