Natural or designed?

[Toma]

SWIM has noticed many people, including SWIM, tend to be biased towards "natural" drugs, considering them to be in some unspecified way superior to "synthetic" counterparts. When pressed for arguments, people either try to convince SWIM (and themselves) that they are "cleaner", "more healthy" and "feel natural" or fall back on shamanic theories that only what is living can have a soul and impart its wisdom.

Himself, SWIM believes that it is only for their own secret metabolic reasons that, for example cacti secrete 3,4,5-trimethoxy-PEA and not, say, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethyl-PEA (2C-E). Leaving aside McKenna's theories, SWIM is willing to bet that these cacti did not set out to synthesize mescaline because it feels "cleaner" to those pesky bipeds that pluck out their buttons. And as Shulgin said, molecules designed and created in a test tube have their own personality and ultimately life when enclosed in the warm wet envelope of a human brain.

As SWIM see it, rather than a vehicle for the wisdom contained in an individual plant, these molecules are catalysts that enable us to access the wisdom of creation through our own minds, opening doors to knowledge that is inherently ours.

And so to our question, in your unbiased judgement, do you see any superiority in the natural product compared to its research chemical counterpart? If so, try to articulate it, at least in order to separate it from self-suggestion.

This thread is probably born out of SWIM's frustration of not having truly experienced mescaline. His low-dose trial with it was inconclusive, whereas SWIM has had clean and euphoric experiences with 2C-E. Is SWIM really missing out on mescaline? Or are rc's just as good?

Please answer only if you have TRIED BOTH the natural substance and its designer analogs.

Oh, and it would be nice if someone could help me make this into a poll, seeing as I don't have the option.

Reputation Comments on this post:

	Good idea for a thread. It's definitely an issue worth exploration.
	Should be a less specific question for the comparison, but it's still a very good conversation topic.

[sunyata]

Not saying anything about wether the plant compounds are better than the synthesized ones, but why should Man and his Doings not be considered a part of nature?

[Paracelsus]

The author of the following thread has newbie status and cannot post polls. He asked me to do this for him. If any rep is given, I am only a simple messenger, SWIToma is the author of this thread.

Can any moderators delete the "Natural or designed?" thread or, better, copy it into this one? Thanks.

Originally Posted by Toma

SWIM has noticed many people, including SWIM, tend to be biased towards "natural" drugs, considering them to be in some unspecified way superior to "synthetic" counterparts. When pressed for arguments, people either try to convince SWIM (and themselves) that they are "cleaner", "more healthy" and "feel natural" or fall back on shamanic theories that only what is living can have a soul and impart its wisdom.

Himself, SWIM believes that it is only for their own secret metabolic reasons that, for example cacti secrete 3,4,5-trimethoxy-PEA and not, say, 2,5-dimethoxy-4-ethyl-PEA (2C-E). Leaving aside McKenna's theories, SWIM is willing to bet that these cacti did not set out to synthesize mescaline because it feels "cleaner" to those pesky bipeds that pluck out their buttons. And as Shulgin said, molecules designed and created in a test tube have their own personality and ultimately life when enclosed in the warm wet envelope of a human brain.

As SWIM see it, rather than a vehicle for the wisdom contained in an individual plant, these molecules are catalysts that enable us to access the wisdom of creation through our own minds, opening doors to knowledge that is inherently ours.

And so to our question, in your unbiased judgement, do you see any superiority in the natural product compared to its research chemical counterpart? If so, try to articulate it, at least in order to separate it from self-suggestion.

This thread is probably born out of SWIM's frustration of not having truly experienced mescaline. His low-dose trial with it was inconclusive, whereas SWIM has had clean and euphoric experiences with 2C-E. Is SWIM really missing out on mescaline? Or are rc's just as good?

Please answer only if you have TRIED BOTH the natural substance and its designer analogs.

Oh, and it would be nice if someone could help me make this into a poll, seeing as I don't have the option.

Originally Posted by sunyata

Not saying anything about wether the plant compounds are better than the synthesized ones, but why should Man and his Doings not be considered a part of nature?

[old hippie 56]

Swim has tried both and is quite fond of the plants. Don't ask him why, because he don't knows. He quess if God made it, it is ok.

[pickledsheep]

I agree completely. What seperates a chemical synthesised or made by a plant. In a way is it not more natural to take something which our own race has created?

[nanobrain]

lest we forget that rarely does the plant material contain a single 'active' alkaloid, mostly there are admixtures which while inactive on their own colour the nature of the experience, synergies etc.

DMT mixes made from older acacias are wiser than from younger ones. morphogenetics.

[snow child]

swim does not like the body load of the "natural"one's.rc's tend to be more fun.The tummy hurts after the "natural" one's, and designed ones are less hurtful to the body.But long term efect's are too be found in mind.

Are not all things from earth or not?

[Toma]

In SWIM's experiences with 2C-E, there was no body load at all. Just clean, light, euphoric psychedelia. If someone had sprinkled garden cactus with 2C-E and given it to SWIM as San Pedro, he might also be advocating now the virtues of natural products.

What SWIM was curious about though is not the superiority of vegetal material over synthetic substance, but the differences between naturally occurring substances and designed ones. In other words is there a bigger difference between mescaline and a RC than between two individual RC's? And is mescaline, whether synthetic or from plant material, in any way better than RC's?

The same argument applies to mushrooms vs. psilocetin/iprocin/etc. Can you substitute the classic drug with its RC counterpart without missing a lot of fun?

[AntiAimer]

All Smurf could say is, he perfers drugs one can grow with little risk. Over drugs one could make with potential hazords and major risks. Maybe Smurf just give's nature more respect then some idiot in his garage. Also something one could grow, is always more appreciated. Smurf, thinks man has no right to stop people from takeing something that was here before they ever were. Something that grows from the ground. As for something MAN synthesized and has potential major hazords, regulation. But if you can make it yourself there really shouldn't be a problem as long as the individual can properly use his brain.

The difference between them.....Man makes one of them, while nature makes the other. Synthetic, can't just be synthesized by some random 5 year old, while "Natural" could be grown litterally by anyone.

With that said, man can definitely synthesis some nice chemicals, but also some terrible ones. So if your looking at this question as in, the highs they give, to all there own.

[mfrieze]

To swim lsd actually feels like one of the most natural drugs and its synthetic. So I dont think nature has anything to do with it. a chemical is a chemical regardless where it came from.. imo

[nanobrain]

^most LSD is semi-synthetic

[Pinkavvy]

tma-6 was better then payote in swips expoerience

[snapper]

Trichocereus panachoi and peruvianus are all mescaline with a fraction of a % of other alkaloids, though this is not so with peyote.
SWIM slightly prefers mescaline from a trichocereus more than any research phen SWIM has tried, but only marginally. SWIM finds 2CE to be very close, but doesn't have that really happy feeling that mescaline has; 2CE is too serious sometimes... DOx are different, last too long and are way too speedy, and the other phens SWIM has tried each have their own charm but are inferior. SWIM has not tried any TMAs or other difficult or illegal phens and amphetamines, so cannot comment on those.
And SWIM does not care that mescaline comes from a plant. SWIM likes mescaline the molecule better, even if it were synthetic in origin. Same molecule in the end with the same effects.

[TitusCrow]

In SWITC's experience, he feels best on synthetics.

LSD has produced him with the cleanest and most enjoyable trips.

[London_Bloke]

Designed - hands down. SWIM is intrigued any chem that starts with 2 or 4.

HOWEVER.... The blotter SWIM's cavies tasted recently was lovely. So half a vote for semi-synth as well.

[HAZMAT]

afoaf has tried 2c-e,2c-c and mescaline hcl, and the only one that felt like it wasnt hurting his body at all was the mescaline hcl. maybe it was the batches of 2c-c and 2c-e were impure?a doz or so trips on mescaline hcl never produced nausea or any type of discomfort.half a doz trips each of the phenethylamine cousins and they always had that punched in the kidney side effect(pain in lower back) followed by a headache at the end of the trip and sometimes it even lasted til the day after.

i think some ppl are baseing all their results on the difference between eating a foot and a half of cactus soup or eating a capsule w/ a keybump of powder in it.if someone was to hand out a bunch of 00 capsules full of mescaline hcl i think the votes would tip more to the natural side.

[Snowman]

Aren't most synthetic drugs modeled after natural drugs anyway?

[BoyInTheCountry]

SWIM just finds it more practical to take synthesized ones. SWIM cant really compare when talking about the mentioned drugs he has only tryed 2C's and not the naturals but when it came to Opiates SWIM got very fed up with munching his way through 10 poppy pods and found it much quicker, easier, and more trouble free simply snorting a little line of powder which takes all of a second rather than spending 15 minutes preparing tea or eating pods. SWIM can imagine taking 2C's is easier than munching through dryed cactus.

[BloodyMuffin]

Swim hasn't tried mescaline, but he doesn't think this is a very fair poll. It assumes that all RCs are the same and that they are all comparable to mescaline. RCs come in many forms. Perhaps be more specific?

[buzzman]

SWIM prefers synthetic drugs, he trusts man more than nature. Dosing seems safer when taking synthetic also.

[Oxymorphone]

SWIM thinks synthetic drugs feel "Cleaner" by far as they are... just a single substance. Natural psychedelics, no, make that natural substances of abuse in general tend to vary a lot from time to time in potency and effect. While effects can be different using the same batch of the same chemical, that's often due to an increased or decreased dosage.

Take marijuana for instance, it isn't JUST the THC getting SWIY high, it's a combination of it and other cannabinoids. For this substance however, SWIM prefers the natural source as opposed to synthetic cannabinoids. But with psychedelic plants like peyote and fungi like psilocybin mushrooms there are less psychoactive chemicals (please, correct me if I'm wrong. I know mushrooms contain psilocybin and ..psilocin? somethin..) but it's predominantly one chemical in them that causes the trip. Even if there is just one main acting chemical there are plenty of differences between plants and mushrooms, what they feed off of, how they're grown, their environment, and even how they're harvested and/or prepared, can have a definite effect on potency.

For most drugs, SWIM tends to lean towards synthetic ones more (opioids) as they tend to be far more effective and (psychedelics) because more of the chemical can be consumed without the other stuff sitting in your stomach, as well as (nearly)guaranteed potency. Less nausea, less discomfort (...depending on the RC... AMT = throw up)

[Desertfox]

the question is kind of inherently flawed because all compounds are naturally designed. Either microscopically by enzymes created by expression of genes of certain plants, or consciously and macroscopically by the hands of a human. In both instances the compounds are being made by something "of the earth" which is what natural means, just on different scales of consciousness.

But humans have one advantage that enzymes do not have, and that's the ability to endlessly purify their product giving rise to the argument that synthetic is actually better because you know it's exact consistency, its exact chemical structure(with the right equipment), and can accurately weigh dose, which all make taking drugs a little safer. Whatever spirit that is contained in the "natural" compound is actually contained in the chemical structure of the compound, IMO, and compounds made in the lab just as likely to have a "spirit" and/or consciousness as natural drugs, and are in some ways a safer way to go than the "natural" route.

A natural or synthetic compound both had chemical structures that were possibilities before either actually ever existed in the universe, it only required time before something, somewhere makes it. And depending on what you believe time is, then you could argue both were always here and just because the activity was discovered at different time does not mean that one is inherently "more pure of spirit" or able to conclusively give a better trip.

If you have junk sit around for enough time(million to billions of years) a television set is statistically bound to form itself out of that junk just by then chance that the items will fall into place. It was just a matter of time.

Oh and just because the compounds haven't been found in nature why do people assume it won't ever be found in nature. Humans are still discovering. And whats not to say some other plants on some other planet haven't formed these compounds?