Synthetic versus organic after-effects

[Flickering]

We've all heard it before. "Stick with nature, man, and you can't go wrong. Magic mushrooms, psychedelic cacti, salvia, it's all good - but don't touch any of that synthesized shit! Those are CHEMICALS, they're bad for you!" To which I usually reply, you go right on with your mother-earth grown datura, I'm gonna stick with LSD though, hope you don't think you're being safer. However, the thought occurred to me while on the toilet (as have half of such thoughts through all of human history; the other half took place on weed) that I've never had any hangover to speak of on a 'natural' substance, even after a bad trip. Shell-shock, maybe, but not hangover. Mescaline, psilocybin, cannabis, all clear of my mind once the experience itself was over. Whereas with LSD, there's either an afterglow or a hangover for the next day or two, depending on the environment (?) and with DXM, well, yuck. I feel like my thoughts have turned into cough syrup.

What do y'all think? Not a personal is-this-normal query, but your own thoughts and experiences on Natural Versus Synthetic in relation to after-effects.

 

[boiledfruit]

I do feel that natural psychedelics are much healthier for your mind and body when used properly and have not felt any negative after effects from using them. However, I definitely have not dropped mushrooms 3 days out of the week for a month straight so I can't really compare.

 

[swilow]

It makes no difference to me.

BTW, organic=synthetic in many cases.

 

[greenmeanies]

I've heard my friends report very troubling side effects from mushrooms-- numbing of extremities, temporary blindness, etc. Then there are those who may have allergic (inflammatory) reaction from certain fungal proteins. Then there are those who have severe hypotension and are prone to passing out after a single hit of weed. The natural world is full of things that may trigger abnormal immune responses.

"Natural" weed may not be entirely clean-- depending on the growing conditions it may be filled with antifungal or insecticidal medications. Hydroponic growing typically uses purely "chemical" fertilizers that are very expensive in terms of energy cost and petroleum resources. The fact that indoor-grown weed uses municipal electrical sources also means that there is probably additional petroleum or coal resources being used. That should make any true hippie stay away from medicinal weed, in favor of mexican schwag which was probably grown in a much more environmentally sustainable condition.

Long story short, it's all in the eye of the beholder

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I'd say the appeal to nature is a fallacious line of thinking, personally. The fact a particular compound is or isn't biosynthesized has nothing to do with its value as a drug.

A more relevant discussion might be whether or not the mix of alkaloids you get from ingesting plant/fungal matter produces a qualitatively superior experience to a particular pure compound by itself.


Also, flickering, might it be better to compare natural 5ht psychedelics to say the shulgin or nichols psychs rather than bring in dissociatives to the mix (in which case, nature doesn't have much to offer in the way of good NMDA antagonists AFAIK)?

 

[IamMe90]

Naturalistic fallacy is definitely a logical fallacy...

but even the most stringent supporter of synthetic psychedelics must admit that there is one key difference between naturals and synthetics:

synthetics have a relatively small body of data with respect to long term side effects because of the advent of recent scientific advancement that allowed for their creation in the first place. Whereas naturals have thousands of years of evidence (or at least hundreds in some cases) in support of their benign effects on the body.

I still think there is relatively little reason to think that synthetics of similar pharmacological nature to naturals (hell, they're usually derived FROM naturals) are any more dangerous to a significant degree. But i do respect that naturals have a larger empirical body of evidence to support their safety profile, and i know how fallible our purported knowledge can be in early stages of certain inquiries (the pharmacology of these synthetics is relatively fledgling).

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

^That's a good point, the classics' safety profiles are well documented. (I'd include LSD though, and something being used for thousand of years doesn't necessarily mean that it is benign and devoid of long term side effects).

 

[huolesoh]

"discussed to death" but i still enjoy it. go here for more:
bluelight.ru/vb/threads/129327-The-Main-Natural-vs.-Chemical-Synthetic-Psychedelics-Thread

unless you can defy the laws of physics it is physically impossible to overdose on cactus (i dare you to try) which is more then i can say for many synthetic creations...... but the level of nausea produced by the cactus is incredible compared to the clean feeling of LSD. they both have their advantages and disadvantages.

"chemical" fertilizers
indoor-grown weed uses municipal electrical sources

yes i have been thinking along these lines too; cannabis is often far from naturally grown nowadays. the plant is essentially being supercharged into unnatural states of potency - i think this is what is often the cause for a change in the delicate balance of cannabinoids and the tendency for PARANOIA to occur. but saying that, i would still feel confident saying these supercharged plants which not a single person has died from are safer and more benign then synthetic cannabinoids. the supercharged plants are still, essentially, physically, plant matter. the inventor of the JWH series said "it is stupid to smoke JWH, it is totally untested" ......... not to mention the sensory appeal that humans have evolved to have of cannabis that is absent with the synthetic counterparts - the delicious sweet taste, smell etc

also there was a guy on here called "Teoznatl" or something, and he was very avidly supporting naturals [obnoxiously so]. but i found a video of him on youtube and he was wearing plastic sunglasses and operating a computer, so that is a big contradiction; it's like only committing to a part of the package of a living-alongside-nature lifestyle

but to argue on the other side of the fence the mushroom can also become extremely dark (is it the baeocystin?) which you probably wouldn't get with 2c-b

of course bluelight.ru itself is a synthetic-inclined scientific-based forum, even the logo is a pill, so many responses will be on the synthetic side !

might it be better to compare natural 5ht psychedelics to say the shulgin or nichols psychs rather than bring in dissociatives to the mix (in which case, nature doesn't have much to offer in the way of good NMDA antagonists AFAIK)?

i think that makes for a good reason to compare them in itself

 

[Mysterie]

i only start getting bad effects from synthetics if i start using them every day and miss out on sleep or some just wont be my cup of tea (2c-i) but i think there are probably some natural drugs that i wont be into, really annoys me when i see on stoner forums "weed's natural bro thats why all other drugs are bad"

 

[sekio]

The "organic" vs "synthetic" argument is old and tired, and honestly, with the advent of modern organic chemistry, there's no reason not to have pure substances, Whether they're extracted from plants or synthesized from reagents, who cares - they're all pure substances in the end.

The appeal to nature is a weak fallacy and anyone who uses it shall recieve my scorn. I do concur however that many plants in nature are very safe in overdose - peyote/mescaline, mushrooms, cannabis, but one must remember things like atropine containing plants, monkshood, death cap mushrooms, and the like. Foxglove (digitalis) would be an incredibly risky natural preparation were it not for standardization of digitalis glycosides for cardiac support.

Shunning useful tools like 2c-E because they are "synthetic chemicals" and must be "bad" is one thing, shunning them because you don't like the experience they provide is another. But in the end there is no difference between 300mg of cactus extracted mescaline and 300mg of lab made mescaline from vanillin, and if you can't accept that, you probably believe there's an all-loving God that cares for (and made) us all and we're all special snowflakes too.

 

[huolesoh]

im greatly enjoying this thread already !

perhaps the fact it is difficult to overdose on the cactus or mushroom plant matter is an all-encompassing symbol of the safety in other respects, too ?

in a documentary i saw, Dr. Shulgin ate a sandwich with white bread; i was thinking perhaps this is a good symbol for his preference of refined creations

nature has datura and cyanide plants, yes. but mankind also has hazardous and toxic chemicals used on a daily basis; carcinogenic plastics, dirty factory pollutants, nuclear waste (there was a rabbit born with no ears as a result of the japan tsunami nuclear spill) potentially detrimental food fertilisers, the list goes on and on - the human body is a fragile dynamic organism, i think the reliance on modern synthetics needs to find a better balance with nature. just earlier today i saw a documentary that proposed using this mushroom flesh as an alternative to HOFMANN himself was a promoter of nature; he enjoyed it as a kid and i read an interview where his big concern was how man is not living in unison with nature - in the same interview he advised young people to "get out into the countryside". Hofmann also said "i'd like to thank God" at his 100th birthday do - he was brought up a catholic !

the aforementioned interview with Hofmann - http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v08n3/08330hof.html

WHY CANT WE ALL BE DELICIOUS SNOWFLAKES !!

i was born and raised and live in a big city of the world, and i'd like (but on an empathetic level, dislike) to say many people look miserable and unhealthy. did you ever see videos of battery cage chickens.... ? The grey streets have nothing on the infinite beauties of nature. needless to say i've been planning my escape

big tangent but insomnia is a bitch - hope im making sense i've had this all on my mind a while, but it's all become a bit of an intuitive confusion

 

[Jesusgreen]

i'd also like to add in a documentary i saw, Dr. Shulgin ate a sandwich with white bread; i think this is a good symbol for his preference of refined creations

Or maybe he just likes it?

Personally, if I were given the choice between a plant medicine, or a synthetic extract of one of the active ingredients - I would pick the plant. However that's not some bias towards "natural" somehow being better, it's more the fact that in medicine we often isolate a single compound from a plant and work with that, ignoring the other compounds that work as catalysts and can even mediate some of the other compound's negative side effects in many cases.

 

[swilow]

(there was a rabbit born with no ears as a result of the japan tsunami nuclear spill)

There is no evidence that this was due to radioactive poisoning or mutation caused by excessive radiation. But, either way, most of the radioactive fallout there has been of non-synthetic radioactive elememnts. Nature has all the building blocks needed to create god knows how many awful things, which might well include humans.

 

[sekio]

it's more the fact that in medicine we often isolate a single compound from a plant and work with that, ignoring the other compounds that work as catalysts and can even mediate some of the other compound's negative side effects in many cases.

And the reason we isolate these components in the first place is so that we can accurately dose them. Seasonal and regional variation in alkaloid concentration in plants can mean the difference between a successful drug dose and a deadly one.

I'm not saying we should ignore nature and only praise synthetic human inventions, aye, there must always be a balance. But the notion that pulling some plants from the earth is more effective than treatment with accurately dosed pure pharmaceutical agents applied for good reasons is silly to me.