The Big & Dandy Natural vs. Chemical / Synthetic Psychedelics Thread

[fastandbulbous]

^ Details here

 

[atom_boy]

I don't neccessairly include the atropine and scopolamine compounds (Datura, Mandragora etc.) or Aminitas here, as they have a greatly known toxitcity, or at least the shit effects outweigh the good, and dosages are impossible to calculate. Also the two species of Iboga I know of (Sth America, Africa) seem to be 'dangerous' as well. For tripping at least.

Peace.

Amanita muscaria are no more difficult to dose than Psilocybe and Paneolus mushrooms harvested from the wild.

im a big fan of organic psych's, but that is mostly because of availability: i grow my own cacti, mushrooms pop up all over the city in winter and many species of Acacia's are only a short drive. aside from LSD i very rarely come across synthetic psychs so i dont really have much comparison but given how i feel about natures own and acid im sure i could find at least one or two that i would love.

 

[bickoma]

Well, it goes both ways.

Organic substances have been used, and technically are 'safer' since they come from the Earth. However, there are definately some dangerous ones. Datura comes to mind.

Synthesized substances are new, and are more 'unsafe', although they can be manipulated for the better. Then again, there are some projects gone wrong. Some RCs come to mind.

 

[Creakle]

Since this whole topic pisses me off so much (the sheer ignorance of these categories even existing confounds me) I will instead paste a paragraph I found in an Art Kleps' book about the 60s psychedelic scene.

"Those who are fixated (love and depend) on the crazy ideas they grew up with will usually repress most of what they have learned on their trip or trips in favor of the standard substitutes for the truth with which they are familiar and comfortable. They may renounce psychedelics completely and join the Moonies or, perhaps, declare that only organic psychedelics are any good, not because they are more mild (more manageable) than acid but because of a pantheistic virtue which resides in organicity, a rationalization which will provide them with a new collection of moralistic dogmas to fuss and fret over."

-Arthur Kleps, "Millbrook", 1994

 

[dilated_pupils]

Organic substances have been used, and technically are 'safer' since they come from the Earth.

What? Because they come from the earth they are safer? That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. You are underestimating mother nature very much.

 

[bickoma]

No, I fully recognize the power of 'mother Earth'. There are many poisonous substances.

However, many people do not. Many percieve these 'natural' substances as safer. And usually, they are. A scientist isn't mixing chemicals. The land is producing these things, and has for millions of years.

 

[fastandbulbous]

No, I fully recognize the power of 'mother Earth'. There are many poisonous substances.

However, many people do not. Many percieve these 'natural' substances as safer. And usually, they are. A scientist isn't mixing chemicals. The land is producing these things, and has for millions of years.

Then why does the pharmaceutical industry invest billions every year on developing drugs to treat conditions that could be treated using preparations of natural origin? Because they're trying to improve the safety margin. The land produces aconite in monkshood that can kill purely through skin absorbtion - the conditions it used to be used to treat are now treated by much much safer synthetic drugs.

Just because many people perceive natural substances as being safer doesn't mean it's true; once upon a time most people thought the sun went around the earth, but that didn't make it correct. Neither is the assumption that natural products are safer. Plants produce these compounds for a reason, generally to prevent themselves from being eaten - which means that they are specifically targeted at being dangerous to anything that might damage them (and mammals are one of the big target groups of these compounds). The reason they've been producing them for millions of years is because they are successful at what they're intended for.

The 'natural products are safer' is just one of the sort of things that seem to be associated with the more woolly thinking associated with using psychedelics

 

[Morninggloryseed]

any percieve these 'natural' substances as safer. And usually, they are. A scientist isn't mixing chemicals. The land is producing these things, and has for millions of years.

That is dogmatic thinking. Whether produced through enzymatic processes in plant cells, or by chemical manipulation in a lab, chemicals are being "mixed." Reactions occur that result in new chemicals being created.

The whole nature vs synthetic argument, or rather that one (natural) is better than the other (synthetic) is very silly in my eye.

 

[Creakle]

Not only is the "natural substances are better" doctrine completely INORGANIC in its rigid domgaticness, but its completely false! "Earth" is a fucking word. It's really a sphere that is the place of possibly the most purile activities in the universe. I'm sure "the land" has the possibility to assassinate you quite efficiently. For that matter, you also possess that ability, and it is you who take any poison, artificial or not, into your body. Think twice before you buy into pre-fabricated ready-made ideas that are little more than a set of words. For example...hungry jackals come from the Earth - those things aren't quite as healthy as a breeze of fresh air and a ripe tomato. unless you manage to kill them yourself, and eat their fresh and tenderous meat!

i recommend actually 'living in nature' before you advocate it as something so wonderful and Walt Disney-like. you might realise how terrifying it is.

blood is also natural, and it comes from the land. same as a gun.
same as man. same as a massive tree falling and breaking your back.
but, incidentally, comets from mars do not come from the Earth, and they are also quite harmful - I do not recommend interacting with them during your lifetime.

 

[swilow]

Since this whole topic pisses me off so much (the sheer ignorance of these categories even existing confounds me) I will instead paste a paragraph I found in an Art Kleps' book about the 60s psychedelic scene.

"Those who are fixated (love and depend) on the crazy ideas they grew up with will usually repress most of what they have learned on their trip or trips in favor of the standard substitutes for the truth with which they are familiar and comfortable. They may renounce psychedelics completely and join the Moonies or, perhaps, declare that only organic psychedelics are any good, not because they are more mild (more manageable) than acid but because of a pantheistic virtue which resides in organicity, a rationalization which will provide them with a new collection of moralistic dogmas to fuss and fret over."

-Arthur Kleps, "Millbrook", 1994

My point was not some "Mother Earth" or the Great Gaian mind crap or 'hippy arse, down to earth mumbo jumbo', but actually attemptingt to identify the safety of certain drugs. Now Terence McKenna wrote in "Food of the Gods" that mental health problems amongst Amazonian tribes who regularly intake ayahuasca, LSA, mushrooms is very low. I have no way of confirming this however.

Because they have been used for thousands upon thousands of years I believe it is safe to assume they are less harmful then the potential risks of the new Research Chemicals, which have not been. Thats all. Plus you can be relatively sure a tribe would not base their entire religoun around something that ultimately killed or debilitated you. Some tribal rituals are indeed very severe (the sect of the Bwiti that hammer each others heads when taking iboga, or the extreme use of harmin/harmaline containg plants that some shamans employ) but I'm not referring to extremes like that.

I have regularly enjoyed the most famous synthetic psychedelic of all, LSD, countless times, plus crappy synths like MDMA/ MDA and I think I mentioned I have taken 2-ci (and loved it), but I believe I'll stick to 'old fashioned' plants and drugs from now. I don't pareticularlywant to develop Parkinsons disease or Flungmanian- Trotbots Symdrome in twenty years- just open my mind a bit.

Its not about earth vs man, or even personal opinions- just safety. Yeah, RC's do in effect come from nature, but there's very few ancient sects that regularly ingest 2-ci as part of their rituals. Manipulating nature can and has lead to the release of very dangerous and crippling substances such as the heroin analogue (can't be bothered rememvbering the name) of the 70's that lead to Parkinsonian type disorders in a sparse group of users.

Personally I'll accept old wisdom (not dogma) as a reliable and trustworthy source. Peace

Plus, the theory is around that psilocybn spores did indeed arrive on a comet, so perhaps we should interface with such massive rocks. : Another wild, psychedelic theory . . . . I personally don't subscribe to. Ta ta ta

 

[Creakle]

OK, I see your point totally. But there still two things that bother me about what you're saying:

Terence Mckenna isn't some "master". There are no masters. In my opinion, people like him and Timothy Leary are assuming titles that they don't deserve: guru. They are not capable of truly guiding you spiritually, and their elaborate conctions of Western myths and vague ideas of Eastern spirutuality hardly constitute as anything beyond stoner philosophy. That said, I find his writing incredibly captivating

Also, whether the "native tribes" use LSD or or peyote, the fact is their way of life is far more conducive to the results of an acid trip or a mushroom trip than our sickening circumstances. It might not be a matter of the very specific nature of the psychedelic itself, but really the manner in which they conduct their lives.

 

[Creakle]

What I'm trying to say is, I'm really not into the old paradigms of the Western drug culture. Maybe the natives are happier because they live healthier lives? Maybe all these theories only fuck us up further. I'm almost becoming phobic of philosophy for its ability to complertely warp your reality in whatever manner you choose to believe. It's groping in the dark.

 

[funknsoul1]

When it comes down to it, the chemicals, whether produced in nature or not, are all created by reaction of (at some point) substances that ARE produced in nature. Furthermore, all of these reactions are governed by the laws (or nature) of this world -- lets call it nature. Any "synthetic" chemical you can think of already existed as a possibility before it was ever synthesized. We just put the puzzle together. This is often mistaken as "man-made," but it's more like "man-discovered."

I'm with morninggloryseed... This whole debate about "natural" vs "synthetic" is silly.

 

[djfriendly]

This thread has turned out to be much more interesting than I expected. Here's a interesting take on the topic from Dr. Shulgin:

Some fascinating studies have been done in Germany where the metabolically active mycelium of some Psilocybe species have been administered diethyltryptamine as a potential diet component. Normally, this mushroom species dutifully converts N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) to psilocin, by introducing a 4-hydroxyl group into the molecule by something that is probably called an indole 4-hydroxylase by the biochemists. You put DMT in, and you get 4-hydroxy-DMT out, and this is psilocin. Maybe if you put Mickey Mouse in, you would get 4-hydroxy-Mickey Mouse out. It is as if the mushroom psyche didn't really care what it was working with, it was simply compelled to do its sacred duty to 4-hydroxylate any tryptamine it came across. It was observed that if you put N,N-diethyltryptamine (DET, not a material found in nature) into the growing process, the dutiful and ignorant enzymes would hydroxylate it to 4-hydroxy-N,N-diethyltryptamine (4-HO-DET) a potent drug also not known in nature. This is the title drug of this commentary. What a beautiful burr to thrust into the natural versus synthetic controversy. If a plant (a mushroom mycelium in this case) is given a man-made chemical, and this plant converts it, using its natural capabilities, into a product that had never before been known in nature, is that product natural? What is natural? This is the stuff of many long and pointless essays.

(emphasis mine)

So, if one creates some 4-HO-DET thorugh this process, is it organic or synthetic? Something to ponder.

 

[Creakle]

"all of these reactions are governed by the laws (or nature) of this world"

yueah, see, that's what nature is. not some weird guy in the closet

 

[fastandbulbous]

Now Terence McKenna wrote in "Food of the Gods" that mental health problems amongst Amazonian tribes who regularly intake ayahuasca, LSA, mushrooms is very low. I have no way of confirming this however.

Also, whether the "native tribes" use LSD or or peyote, the fact is their way of life is far more conducive to the results of an acid trip or a mushroom trip than our sickening circumstances. It might not be a matter of the very specific nature of the psychedelic itself, but really the manner in which they conduct their lives.

That's got to do with the social support structures etc operating among these people and very little to do with the actual drug itself. Because of a long history of use of these compounds, they have rules about wnen and how to take it and in the event of someone having a negative reaction, people who have a lot of experience (eg village shamen, elders etc) will get involved and help the person through their difficulty. This is totally unlike what happens in industrialized countries, where we have very little or no rules about when and where to consume these drugs and if anyone does get into difficulty, there aren't many in the medical profession that have experience of helping people through such difficulties with psychedelics. Combine this with a fear of the legal consequences of admitting to using psychedelic drugs (which is pretty much absent in native use) and I'm actually amazed that we don't have more people with long term problems

 

[nife]

Y'know, I have a few close friends who follow the "mother earth" train of thought. Not to rag on anybody here, but sometimes it is outright ignorant and quite annoying. I've heard things like: "Dude... mushrooms are better than anything else, and of course, much safer than anything synthetic because they grow that way... they're meant to be safer," but these people tend to ignore the fact that there are many, many species of poisonous mushrooms (and literally many thousands of poisonous, deadly thing in nature) that "grow that way."

These same people shun the idea of ingesting any and all "new" synthetic tryptamines and phenethlyamines because "Dude... some guy in a lab made them, and they're made with, like, chemicals, man! They can't be good for your body." But, ironically, nearly every one of these people seem to lose their dedication to "organic" psychedelics, and blind hatred of "synthetics" when LSD pops up every now and then... Contradictory bullshit. 8)

 

[Xorkoth]

Great thread! And right along with something I've been thinking about for a while.

One point I haven't seen that I'd like to bring up is that in most natural plant sources of psychedelics, there are multiple alkaloids that are active in the body at once whose combined effects create the subjective experience. This is especially true in cacti, it seems, where mescaline is the main alkaloid responsible but certainly not the only one. Presumably because of this, I personally find that the "natural" (or plant source) psychedelics produce more complete and spiritual subjective trips. Why is this? I don't know, it could be chance, or it could be designed that way by the force of creation. I won't speculate here, as it's not the point. Of course there are exceptions to this, as I find 2C-E, for example, to be just as complete and spiritual as the organics, albeit in a much different way.

However, I totally agree with the people here who are saying that the difference between synthetic and organic psychedelics is not clear-cut. What defines natural? Plant-grown? Well then, why? Aren't synthetic chemicals human-grown? Aren't humans also a natural part of the earth? And yes, many synthetic chemicals are created from seperate parts that alone are extremely harmful. But the point is that, when made by a skilled chemist with no impurities (as must be assumed when discussing DRUG SAFETY - we're not talking about impure drug safety here), the resulting chemical does not have the properties of its reagents anymore. Well, sometimes it might, but not in the case of psychedelic research chemicals. Someday, we may be proven wrong, and find out that some of these research chemicals are doing massive, irreversible damage to our brains. But what research has been done (and with some, there has been a considerable amount), has not found this to be the case. And it's quite silly to just assume that, since the chemicals are made in a lab through human-initiated chemical reactions rather than plant-initiated, they would be automatically more dangerous. If anything, at least you're only putting one distinct chemical into yourself, rather than potentially hundreds that exist within a single dose of a plant psychedelic.

And, as people have been saying, the native tribes who have used the plant psychedelics for thousands of years also lived lives which were tied in closely with nature, whose goal was to live in harmony with the world. This is in stark contrast to our lives which are filled with corruption, decay, mental and emotional trauma, depravity, pollution, and the concept of selling your soul for money and power. No surprise to me why so many people can't handle their psychedelics.

It reminds me of a crappily-written Erowid report, I believe on 2C-E, where the guy stupidly dosed high, in a bad environment, with little experience, and was traumatized. Then he said that the experience turned him away from "those awful basement chemicals", the RCs. Ugh...

In conclusion, the idea that synthetic chemicals are worse for you is sometime true, yes. But sometimes, natural chemicals are worse for you than organic ones, too. This idea is in place because of social stimgas that have been in place ever since the drug way started, and it's amazing to see how far-reaching they really are. Only a couple of my friends would even begin to consider taking any of the synthetic chemicals I've taken, and the rest are of the minset that they don't want to fuck up their minds with something chemical. Well, okay, what do you think the plants contain? Magical essence?

Nope, they contain chemicals.

 

[nife]

One of the crazy things I've noticed about the aformentioned friends of mine above, is that, in the past, when they have decided to try a newer synthetic phenethylamine or typtamine, their predisposed negative mindset has, I shit you not, ruined their trip every single time without fail. It is crazy, how powerfully the mind can influence an experience based on built-up expectations! Too bad for them, I suppose... You can only try to pry open a closed mind for so long.

 

[Xorkoth]

A negative mindset will ruin it every time. Too, too bad. My best friend's girlfriend used to hate it when he smoked weed, and had a very negative opinion of it; basically, she thought it was stupid, immature, and killed your brain cells, making you permanently stupider. Eventually she tried it, and had a blast, but when she was coming down, she decided that she couldn't have possibly liked it, and that it was the drug fooling her, and she never tried it again, and told everyone how terrible and scary the demon weed was - even though we all witnessed her having a blast and enjoying it.