|
 Some of these posts are very old and might contain outdated information. You may wish to search for newer posts instead.
|
 Teotzlcoatl
Teotzlcoatl
Registered: 06/29/07
Posts: 2,421
Loc: South-Eastern USA
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
 Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics???  [Re: yageman]
#7126768 - 07/03/07 11:29 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Let me make one thing very clear, LSD is uncomparable to XTC and Meth. LSD does no known damage to the body, correct?
Again I will state- I am in no way saying LSD or synthetics such as psilocybin and mescaline are bad, I’m not saying your bad if you use them, or even unwise, that’s fine.
The term head was- yes, stupid. I mean it like pot-“head” as in addict.
And if some “mo-fo” found psilocybin-like chemicals that occurred naturally in plants, animals, cacti, fungi, or whatever it would truly be an important find.
You guys seem rather pissed and im guessing LSD is a close ally of yours, sorry if I’m a bad writer. I AM new.... I was just hoping I could hear some different experiences people have been having with organics vs. synthetics; My views aren’t set in stone, I’m 18! Right now I lean toward the natural drugs, but I came to the shroomery for information, thanks for the warm welcome dickhead. Oops! Sorry theres that term again... do you understand it this time?
All I’m saying is-
1) Drugs with a history of use are known to be safer than drugs without a history of use. Note I said they are KNOWN.....LSD MAY be completely safe, but it is not 100% absolutely positively certain.
2) Plants drugs are harder to use than most drugs, LSD or synthetics can be simply taken without a second thought. Plant drugs usually need extensive research before they can be properly prepared and effective doses reached, or you must know how to grow them or identify them or whatever........point is you have to learn a lot more than where to find your local drug dealer. The knowledge gained in learning their preparation make people respect them more.
Drugs are powerful, and I believe they should be respected.
3) Plant drugs usually have a heritage which I enjoy gaining knowledge of, and contemplating.
4) Since plant chemicals often mimic chemicals in the brain, it would be fair to make the assumption that they are easier for the brain to recognize, process and metabolize.
5) Trace chemicals enhance the psychedelic plant drug experience, while synthetics consist of a single pure chemical, and a single pure effect.
I believe these 5 statement to be mostly agreeable....Any arguments? (I know I’ll get some)
Yageman, next time you want to tell me something how about explaining your self without being an asshole. It makes it hard for me to tell you your right about stuff if you insult me. You said plenty of valid stuff, but acted like a whiney bitch.....If you don’t want to hear my bullshit....Don’t read it.
P.S.- If you guys want me to quote Mckenna’s requirements let me know....they’re a lot like mine.
--------------------
"We are the one's we have been waiting for"-Hopi proverb
|
Salvia_Antics
DMT Convert
Registered: 01/28/07
Posts: 378
Loc: The Garden Of Eden 
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7126795 - 07/03/07 11:40 PM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Teotzlcoatl said:
All I’m saying is-
1) Drugs with a history of use are known to be safer than drugs without a history of use. Note I said they are KNOWN.....LSD MAY be completely safe, but it is not 100% absolutely positively certain.
2) Plants drugs are harder to use than most drugs, LSD or synthetics can be simply taken without a second thought. Plant drugs usually need extensive research before they can be properly prepared and effective doses reached, or you must know how to grow them or identify them or whatever........point is you have to learn a lot more than where to find your local drug dealer. The knowledge gained in learning their preparation make people respect them more.
Drugs are powerful, and I believe they should be respected.
3) Plant drugs usually have a heritage which I enjoy gaining knowledge of, and contemplating.
4) Since plant chemicals often mimic chemicals in the brain, it would be fair to make the assumption that they are easier for the brain to recognize, process and metabolize.
5) Trace chemicals enhance the psychedelic plant drug experience, while synthetics consist of a single pure chemical, and a single pure effect.
I believe these 5 statement to be mostly agreeable....Any arguments? (I know I’ll get some)
1)LSD has history. The 60's?
2)I would say synthesizing LSD requires alot more knowledge then say growing shrooms.
3)LSD again has a heritage its just more modern.
4)LSD is very close to seretonin same as psilocybin.
--------------------
"The dream is dreaming itself"--Kalahari Bushmen
|
Crystal G
Registered: 06/05/07
Posts: 19,584
Loc: outer space
Last seen: 10 months, 22 days
|
|
The people who claim that organics are better than synthetics make no sense.
The fact is, all matter originally comes from the earth. Which makes all products by default, natural.
Even organics ARE chemical compounds, just like synthetics are. They can be easily created, through organic chemistry.
|
Teotzlcoatl
Teotzlcoatl
Registered: 06/29/07
Posts: 2,421
Loc: South-Eastern USA
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
|
1) LSD has a short history compared to Aya', Cacti, 'Shrooms, etc.
2) The average person taking LSD certainly did not make it.
3)Psilocybin more closely resembles serotonin than LSD.
Anybody want to comment on LSA, I noticed how somebody called LSA, LSD's retarded cousin. I'd have to agree, sure made me feel retarded after i took it. I'm sure LSA has very little relationship to chemicals in my brain...
--------------------
"We are the one's we have been waiting for"-Hopi proverb
|
 Taharka
The Root of the Problem
Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 686
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7126945 - 07/04/07 12:23 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
1) This makes sense how? People have been eating mushrooms containing psilocybin for thousands of years, but the chemical psilocybin itself has no history of use?
2) Not true. For some it's a means to an end. Just look at the "Ayahuasca kits" they have now.
3) And synthetics don't?
4) "Plant chemicals" do not often mimic endogenous ones. A few do, and that's why they're PSYCHOACTIVE in the first place. This has nothing to do with whether they are synthetic or natural.
5) Of course a mixture of Psilocybin, Psilocin, and Baeocystin doesn't feel anything like pure Psilocybin. But I bet a synthetic mixture of similar ratios of Psilocybin, psilocyin, and baeocystin does. Again, this has nothing to do with the superiority of "natural" molecules. Three synthetics could be packaged together to perfectly emulate the combination in the mushroom.
And...
2. The average person eating shrooms did not make them.
3. Psilocybin resembles serotonin more closely than it does LSD. True, but that doesn't say much about its psychoactive potential. Oh, and does "synthetic" psilocybin resemble serotonin any more closely than "natural" psilocybin?
In the end, all they are is molecules. And even though I enjoy growing and using psychoactive plants, I don't think there is anything more safe or reliable than synthetic material. It is available in exact doses, and (ideally) you know exactly where it came from, and what you are getting. The 30-something alkaloids in Peyote do work together to create a unique experience, that is different from mescaline alone. But the mescaline in peyote is identical to all other mescaline that has existed, ever. Instead of making arguments based on something you don't know much about, pressure your local chemist to synthesize psilocin, baeocystin, and hordenine for you so that you can have a more "complete" experience.
|
Teotzlcoatl
Teotzlcoatl
Registered: 06/29/07
Posts: 2,421
Loc: South-Eastern USA
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Taharka]
#7127128 - 07/04/07 01:16 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I just think it's safer, requires more knowledge/respect and has interesting heritages/traditions.
Ok "plant chemicals" do not occur in the human body, what is true is that aya', shrooms and cacti all have chemicals which are similar to chemicals in the body, or already occur in the body.
As for combining synthetic psilocybin, psilocin, baeocystin plus creating or extracting any extra chemicals I think it’d be very tough. Besides the shrooms already got that covered, and i bet they are doing a better job than any scientist could.
P.S.- If you don't know what "extra" chemicals im talking about check out my new thread in the psychedelic experience section called etheogenic mushrooms with chemicals other than psilocybin.
--------------------
"We are the one's we have been waiting for"-Hopi proverb
|
Taharka
The Root of the Problem
Registered: 09/29/05
Posts: 686
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7127187 - 07/04/07 01:32 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Teotzlcoatl said:
P.S.- If you don't know what "extra" chemicals im talking about check out my new thread in the psychedelic experience section called etheogenic mushrooms with chemicals other than psilocybin.
A funny thing for you to say after commenting on how I mentioned them (in #3).
I don't really know what you're failing to grasp.
Molecules that are structurally similar enough to our endogenous neurotransmitters to interfere with them are Psychoactive. This is true of those that occur in nature, and those discovered by man. Why do you think that molecules created via plant metabolism instead of in the lab are superior? In the end, they're both chemical reactions. One takes place in a beaker, the other in the cells of a mushroom, but it's all chemistry. And synthetics have the potential to be safer *because* they are created in a controlled environment. We know exactly what goes in, exactly what comes out, and exactly what's left over when the reaction is done. As a living organism, a mushroom isn't nearly so exact. There are other processes going on all over the place, and when you eat a mushroom you are also eating environmental contaminants, flavinoids, chitin, whatever bacteria might be living in them at the time, etc.
And try telling Albert Hoffman that it requires more knowledge and respect to grow mushrooms than it does to make LSD.
|
yageman
already dead
Registered: 01/26/06
Posts: 4,965
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7127279 - 07/04/07 02:09 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Teotzlcoatl said:
I just think it's safer, requires more knowledge/respect and has interesting heritages/traditions.
Thats alright with me.
Its somehow safer, it is more interesting, deserves respect, and tradition is everything.
You are a fool..........................through and through.
I didnt say lsa makes anyone feel retarded(sorry it makes you feel that way and maybe it should). I called it lsd's retarded younger brother for obvious reasons.
It also has been used safely for a long ass time. So has salvia, and even datura. Lots of tradition there as well. I dont see your words reflect any respect for lsa....hmmmm
All you have said is just a clusterfuck of nonsense.
Im sorry, but someone had to say it for the 30th time.
--------------------
[quote]Me_Roy said:
You moron. Material is material is material. No 'thing' fixes any situation. If anything were so simple we would be living in a much better world.[/quote] <-----the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.
Thanks shroomery.
|
LordSenate
One of the Lost
Registered: 09/15/02
Posts: 37,093
Loc: First Circle of Hell
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7127290 - 07/04/07 02:15 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Honestly I think the best trip i ever had was on 2ce.. but all of my trips had there own place.
|
yageman
already dead
Registered: 01/26/06
Posts: 4,965
Last seen: 14 years, 11 months
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: yageman]
#7127295 - 07/04/07 02:19 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Also, many plants slipped between the cracks in your logic somehow. Thats kind of weird.
It sounds like this thread title should be, "nn-dmt and psilocybin containing mushrooms VS LSD"..........................
Synthetic vs organic sounds like its aside from your agenda to some degree. It only seems that way because what you are saying makes it seem so simple, and you present yourself as if you are mildly retarded.
I got the point you gave, again and again. This is not a matter of me not understanding.
I am just wanting to go out of my way to call bullshit on your messy logic and the fact that you drop facts like how a kid drops a duce.
--------------------
[quote]Me_Roy said:
You moron. Material is material is material. No 'thing' fixes any situation. If anything were so simple we would be living in a much better world.[/quote] <-----the dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.
Thanks shroomery.
|
HeiligBoomerz
SelfIntrospector
Registered: 01/16/06
Posts: 435
Loc: A Never-Ending REM Cycle
Last seen: 9 years, 11 months
|
|
Quote:
Apollyphelion said:
So there is nothing special that WE, the humanrace has created LSD after 1000 years of evolution? Look at it this way, LSD is our chemical after years of evolving, just like the cactus has theirs.
All of the spiritual uses you talk about are interchangable with just about any proven psychedelic. Salvia ("natural" or extracted) Cactus, Shrooms, LSD, LSA, DMT ect are all merely different variations on the "spirtglasses" shrooms lets you look through.
LSD is equal to anything nature has to offer, and many people feel Lucy is a more valuble tool than any of the ones I mentioned above.
LSD has the status it does for a reason, and that reason being very similar to why all the other drugs I mentioned have their status.
You don't see a subculture/music culture/science culture revolving around DOB or DOI, for example.
"So there is nothing special that WE, the humanrace has created LSD after 1000 years of evolution? Look at it this way, LSD is our chemical after years of evolving, just like the cactus has theirs."
That was a awsome response.
--------------------
"The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over."
|
Rhizoid
carbon unit
Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,739
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 2 months, 6 days
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7127540 - 07/04/07 05:23 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Teotzlcoatl said:1) Drugs with a history of use are known to be safer than drugs without a history of use.
Not necessarily. Tobacco is a natural plant drug with a long history of use, but it's been known to be dangerous only for about 50 years. Another example: natural plant drugs that contain tropane alkaloids have a long history of use, and they are far more dangerous than LSD or MDMA.
You have point though in that we should study the traditions associated with drugs that have a long history. Not follow the traditions blindly, but study them and learn from them so we can adapt or own culture to use drugs safely. Synthetic vs. natural is much less important than how the drugs are used.
|
masterxenn
-~={•X€ñN•}=~-
Registered: 06/15/07
Posts: 506
Loc: A to the mutha phucken K
Last seen: 9 hours, 12 minutes
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Rhizoid]
#7127548 - 07/04/07 05:49 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I'd like to make a metaphorical example.
Ok, we have a nut and a bolt. In one instance we use NO gloves to put the nut and bolt together, and in the other example we use gloves to put the nut and bolt together.
Now, using using gloves is considered synthetic, since you did using tools, and not using gloves is considered natural.
If using is gloves is considered synthetic, how does that change the state of the material?
It doesn't, but it MAY change your perception, and that really is up to the individual.
Ask a doctor, or preferentially an organic chemist, what the difference is between a synthetic material and an organically derived material is? The difference is it's history, not it's present form.
It's your choice dude, and good luck, enjoy every moment. No ones stopping you.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7127847 - 07/04/07 08:37 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah man, Datura beats LSD any day. Organics ftw!
--------------------
|
DistortedEyes
hello
Registered: 03/16/04
Posts: 875
Loc: uk
Last seen: 16 years, 7 months
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7127862 - 07/04/07 08:44 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
chemicals are chemicals, doesn't matter how they came about.
--------------------
Sometimes when I read threads visions of men sword fighting with their genitalia run through my head. - sadspacemonkey
|
theorganicdomino
Psychedelic ZenBuddhist
Registered: 09/03/04
Posts: 1,855
Loc: Here & Now
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
Organic, synthetic - meh!
It's more about the synergy you have with a substance and how successfully you can integrate them into your life - whether grown or concocted in a lab.
Personally I prefer the "personalities" of organic substances and find them a little easier on the body, but that's just me.
--------------------
"You've got to get hold of the thread of marching time, pull the fuck thing down, get on the end of it and pang yourself to the infinitude of absolute mind"
Ken Campbell - Furtive Nudist
"The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced" - Aart van der Leeuw
|
Feanor
Registered: 05/07/06
Posts: 1,546
|
|
Quote:
LSD may be many wonderful things to many wonderful people, but the entheogenic history of the shroom and the cactus, it does not have. And he has gone back to that point repeatedly. I think the underlying message is that he values the role of drugs as tools and teachers moreso than a means of getting fucked up. Isn't that refreshing to hear?
Yes, that's all fine and dandy. However, basically, the message I'm getting from him is that LSD isn't a tool and a teacher, but rather something that people use to get fucked up, which is utter rubbish.
By the way, everything that is synthetic is organic, so this entire thread is preposterous. If you can't comprehend that, then you're a bit slow.
--------------------
 May Terence McKenna Live Long
The DMT Chronicles
|
Kinematics
coyote vision
Registered: 10/01/06
Posts: 662
Loc: Colorado
Last seen: 7 years, 4 months
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Feanor]
#7128017 - 07/04/07 10:13 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I like both LSD and mushrooms, however I prefer mushrooms over L from the fact that I know for a fact I am eating mushrooms. When you get LSD, it can always be some sort of analog. I don't always like to trust other people when making some sort of illicit substance I put in my body.
|
MycoCakeEater
Old Hand
Registered: 06/16/03
Posts: 1,572
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Acyl]
#7128030 - 07/04/07 10:20 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Acyl said:
Its hard to argue for or against something like LSD being found in space, LSD is a very fragile molecule.. Think about how perfect the conditions would have to be for it to spontaneously occur. Id bet a good portion of the LSD known to the universe has been produced by humans.
I believe that us as humans, the world we live in and interact, and the creatures on this earth is the ultimate in proof of this universes randomness and its ability to form and create. We are infinitely more complex than LSD molecule, and much more fragile when you look at the entire picture.
|
Apollyphelion
Dungeon Master/Princess(1009)
Registered: 03/15/07
Posts: 16,757
Loc: Festival of Deaths
|
Re: Organics Vs. Synthetics??? [Re: Teotzlcoatl]
#7128088 - 07/04/07 10:49 AM (16 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Seeing that you like mushrooms, cacti, ect. but refuse to accept LSD in your pantheon, that must suck, dude! To me that'd be like a nasty joke played on me.
I would take a shit load of mushrooms and ask them to tell you your "arguement is bullshit", because thats how the mushrooms spirit feel, I know because I asked this spirit. I did this with the utmost repsect, using esoteric magic, and all sorts of rites, utmost intention, and EVEN the mushrooms say you are wrong. I don't usually post replies like this, because they make me look crazy, but the mushrooms are right, and you are wrong.
You said:1) LSD has a short history compared to Aya', Cacti, 'Shrooms, etc.
2) The average person taking LSD certainly did not make it.
3)Psilocybin more closely resembles serotonin than LSD.
These have no real reasoning behind them. History, Resemblance and Who can make it has nothing to do with quality. I can buy mushrooms forma Heroin addict, who beats his puppy dog, does that make them any less "sacred" Those three points are JUST like saying "That door is brown, so I don't like cheese"
Statements can't back things up like raw experience can, and you have very knowledgable people telling you are wrong.
If you do take the sacred/spiritual route, which I often do with these tools, from the way you talk you have a lot of work to do.
And that includes accepting LSD as a spirit.
Don't belittle the human race by demoting LSD to a drug, when it is the same quality of a "drug" you do.
Safety is another bullshit angle--Psychedelics aren't toys, and they all pose equal risks.
If you keep taking psychedelics however, in the correct and respectful fashion, they will make you see more bullshit. Including the daily cloud of bullshit that clouds you and me. Including your own bullshit, like this. They really are nice tools, these....psychedelics.
--------------------
"I'm looking at you looking at it"
SUBSCRIBE TO MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL PLEASE! www.youtube.com/apollyphelion
Creator of the World's Worst Comic Book
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
Brukan
1 2 3 all )
PDU
Noviseer
mjshroomer
Psilocybeingzz
earlyriser
drunkgoat