the great natural vs. synthetic debate

maybe it does. or they cause the same biochemical event, but with mild differences in affinity, kinetics, etc

 

maybe it does, yeah. i suspect not though. a psychedelic experience is a very "high order" phenomena, involving living organisms, consciousness, nuances of meaning, etc. just like a bridge's structural integrity is a relatively "high order" characteristic, which would not be affected whether the iron it is built from came from the earth, or a lab, even if those two irons were quite different at the subatomic level.

 

As stated many times previously, you can get extremely safe chemical made chemicals (most of the tryptamine derivatives with the exception o 5 meo AMT maybe), and you can get natural chemicals which are extremely poisonous.

The plant evolved to synthesize 'x' chemical not on the basis of its safety in humans, but rather for its own survival reasons and this is COMPLETELY unrelated as to whether it is a better drug in a human; as I just stated before there are plenty of natural poisons and safe chemicals.

 

^Agreed. I think labeling this topic natural vs. synthetic is a bit misleading.

I don't consider pure isolated Psilocin to be a natural substance, as there are techniques and chemicals involved used to separate it from the rest of the alkaloids,nutrients,etc that make up the mushroom. I view that possibly as semi-synthetic?

That being said I think what the OP is trying to get across is that if we try to construct those compounds as opposed to taking them from their natural source we have problems keeping the stability and durability or whatever other aspects may play role on a subatomic level.

So why that matters on a large scale is if you introduced the compounds into medicine or psychotherapy and used the complete synthethetic versions which is certainly easier to make then growing a bunch of marijuana or mushrooms is that you may be having degradation in the chemicals, impurities, or possibly even slightly different action upon the brain.

So using your analogy Mr. Writer it would be like having a bridge you thought would last for 100 years last 50 and subject to various weaknesses and constant repairs based on your choice of different materials even though they serve the same purpose.

 

^^^thanks for trying to explain it in a different light.
it's just a possibility. mr. writer is probably right though. not trying to say that natural is better than synthetic - just different. they aren't exactly the same like i once thought.

 

im just going to chime in real quick and say Peyote > Mescaline.

Thanks!

 

wise men like you shouldn't be afraid to elaborate on their experience

 

Synthetic thc would have the exact same affinity for the exact same cannibinoid receptors as the natural thc (as this will be affected slightly by polarity, but an enzyme is no more selective than a catalyst may be albeit more effecient). This is going to solicit the exact same electrochemical response in both cases within the neuron (it fits like a key.. and they are the same key) . The natural product contains many other substances. Marinol is converted into a different chemical in the liver (just like thc, and btw have you ever tried eatting raw bud? THC needs to be heated to be fully active), so do not base any analysis off a comparison of natural vs marinol. If you did an extraction dirrectly from marijuana of pure thc, and also created thc in the lab in the same purity... they would have the exact same results when taken the same route.

 

that's just one example... neurotransmitters might have isomers in different states of polarity... but if you do create the proper isomer (same molecule) it will solicit the same reaction in neurotransmitters... every time. There is many reasons people prefer naturals... and if you want to thats fine. But comparing 4-aco and mushies or weed vs marinol is like comparing flax seed as a cancer cure with chemotherapy. They are both "chemotherapy" technically but flax seed has a hundred things in it... that all do different things. Chemotherapy is one chemical, with a very specific action.

Naturals have lots of stuff in them with changes the high and makes it unique.

 

enzymes are quite particular in the substances that they bind. you can't know for sure that electron spin or subatomic characteristics don't have slight effects on ligand binding in vivo.

a "lock and key" mechanism was long ago discarded for an "induced fit" mechanism. the "key" doesn't really fit until you start putting it into the "lock" where it induces a structural change.

and chemotherapy is actually quite UNspecific, hence it's multitude of side effects.

 

A catalyst may be less specific, but through distallation and careful procedure a certain isomer can be obtained... although the electron spin may not be the same.

Chemotherapy is usually a specific chemical or medicine, although it affects all the cells of the body it does have a specific affect on them, although the effect is systemic so it doesnt only affect the desired cells. The different between this and a flax seed is that flax has many compounds in it.

 

i hear ya

 

all of them.

at once.

 

The answer to any question involving taking multiple substances .

 

+1, unless proven un safe with certin combos.