Well humans have thrown a wrench into all kinds of evolved systems. If we can compare the mescaline content of two patches of cacti, and examine which fairs better at keeping insects away, then we can start taking a closer look at that correlation in the context of other possible functions of mescaline until we arrive at a probable reason for its evolutionary advantage.

There is no reason for a cactus to produce mescaline unless that production was somehow fitness-improving during the evolution of the species. Just because careless humans suddenly realized that the plant was an easy source for cheap drugs does not make the trait evolutionarily senseless, it just means that the species, as with many species (see: the dodo), has not been able to evolve fast enough in response to such a drastic change in its environment.

On natural vs. synthetic, it's easy to see examples of human processes that make natural substances more concentrated and more harmful, such as heroin and cocaine. However, this has nothing to do with the substances being man-made, but rather with the economic forces that encourage drugs to be compact, potent, and addictive. At what point is a substance no longer natural? If you add several plants to a pot and make ayahuasca, is that still natural? If you toast some cebil, freebase and smoke the bufotenine, is that still natural? What about an A/B extraction?

Another point to consider: if you extract the flavor from bananas with harsh solvents in a factory, then your banana-flavored product can be labeled "no artificial flavors". If you combine two nontoxic compounds to get the exact same flavoring, it's artificial. So the "natural" compound may have minute traces of aromatic hydrocarbons while the other is safer.

The fact of the matter is that most of the traditional entheogenic plants are considered "safe enough" for their specific traditional uses; the health risks are only negligible in that context, meaning they're merely used seldom enough as to not cause any significant problems and/or the benefits outweigh the risks. There is no god-given inherent stratification between naturally occurring and refined substances, it's all determined by individual context of use. There is no long history of use of any plant or pure substance (let alone the endless variations in amounts, combinations, purities or potencies, or preparations) under the context of the modern-day psychonaut. Psychonauts generally fall on the cutting edge of experimentation, just as shaman's once found themselves; though even now the shaman's vast body of knowledge may be found lacking in areas when contrasted by modern scientific investigation, but the modern psychonaut must be able to reconcile and sublimate the two for his/her own individual concerns.

Your reaction to what I wrote is way off. You're not even reading what I'm saying properly. I give up trying to argue with you when you don't even bother to understand what I'm writing. If you can re-read what I wrote without your pre-conceived ideas maybe you’ll get a better understanding of what I actually was saying. I think I wrote it clear enough, but you’re not getting my point at all. Coatl does, and you're also misreading what Coatl is saying.

Burnt you look at the plants as having limitations when compared to psychoactive drugs, but it is these exact "limitations" that you see, that I see as "fail-safes".

I think the question is not

NATURAL or unnatural!

The question is:

Should I consume a certain substance?

Now, if I trust nature, I should gain natural drugs!
If I trust humans, I should go for the human made drugs.

I trust nature more then humans!


But this is not the only argument i have.
Traditional usage of certain substances like DMT shows, that this substance has FAITH to be here.

It is its FAITH to be consumed.
Sounds strange? Then explain the revelation of ayahuasca.
Which jungleman can gather such a recipe. Trial and error? .. never

I don't see any faith in chemicals developed by humans.

Synthetic THC or natural THC, which would you prefer?
I wouldn't lay a finger on the synthetic!

Something which can be gained from nature should never be imitated!!

bah.
receptors recognize specific chemicals, not biomass and other filler crap.

take an extract of pure THC, and take a synthesized THC standard...boot them both into a GC-MS, then try to tell the difference.

Well, if it's exactly the same chemical with all the atoms correctly assembled i probably would not be able to tell which one is the right one.

But cannabis is not just THC as you surely know.

I just don't like the idea of consuming something synthetic when there is plenty of natural ressources available.

It just doesn't feel right for me!

I agree 100%. The natural compound should always be used when available. It's made by a plant that's 100% biodegradable and part of the ecosystem. A lab with a bunch of chemicals and glassware is not a friendly part of the ecosystem. There is simply no comparison here. Natural THC in this case is definitely better for the planet.

Ron ok so your saying that the safety profile for natural drugs is there when for synthetic drugs its not? And no offense but when argueing with you the only way to "read you sentences properly" is to agree with you. And I don't agree with you because you are wrong and biased.

Well if thats what you are saying which I think its what you and coatl are saying its not necessarily true in all cases. Again your ignoring cases were its blatantly not true.

Most plants in the world have never been rigoursly tested for safety or toxicity. Obviously ones that people use all the time are pretty safe otherwise people wouldn't use them. But there are many examples of natural plant based drugs that contain toxic compounds sometimes in levels that are harmful depending on the dosage.



Again not necessarily true. Lets look at the example of taxol. Taxol comes from pacific yew bark in trace amounts. You need to cut down hundreds of trees to make taxol. Hundreds upon hundreds. But modern science has figured out ways of extracting precursors or taxol from the needles of the tree and using them to synthesize taxol. Also cell culture has allowed man a way to produce taxol without cutting down trees.



Nature doesn't make drugs for people. Many substances are defense compounds. Humans can at least engineer a drug to be very safe and very effective. So can nature but the point is ITS ALL CHEMICALS. Whether natural or unnnatural is meaningless unless you talk about its effects and safety.



Again if that was peoples attitude we would not have the amount of successful drugs that we have. We would have a very limited number of antibiotics we would have a limited number of cancer drugs we would have a limited number of pain killers.



There was a case in south africa about a year ago. Where a traditional healing was making a brew in his house and killed himself and about 10 members of his family.

The problem with your reasoning is that you automatically assume traditional healers know what they are doing when in reality they don't always. Its same with modern doctors but still again its nothing to do with natural versus unnnatural (whatever that even means).

If I understand Ron's statements correctly I think he wasn't necassarily saying that natural substances weren't necassarily safer, but through a long history of use we have learnt more about them and from that we can make more informed decisions. Whereas with newer synthetic substances we don't have that knowledge.

Yes but you don't understand that just because people were using some plant doesn't mean it is safer then a synthetic counterpart. It also does not mean it was as effective as a synthetic counterpart.

People weren't gathering data in the way we do now either. Traditional healers have all kinds of wacked out ideas on medicine that aren't as effective as western modern medicines. You can't dispute that because there are many cases were it is empirically true. Some of them are even dangerous.

Also as far as being "better for the planet" again this bias is based in ignorance. Synthetic chemicals are sometimes better for the planet because its cheaper and easier and simpler to make them in MASS quantities when growing thousands of plants is not practical.

Nature isn't partial to bad lab conditions and bad chemists though It does what it does.

For the record I understand your point.

^Cool.

Guys you gotta understand I get irked by this subject because in my field I work natural compounds that have potential as medicine. So I know many examples where what coatl and ron are saying is blatantly not true.

Both of them ignore what I say about examples that counter their argument. Like cardiac glycosides. Even motion sickness medicines have been developed that are safer then their natural counterparts. I mean I can think of so many examples and we can go through them one by one but it doesn't matter because all they will do is say "your not listening to me" or "natural is better because its better for the planet" or "your being rude" etc etc. Its always the same lack of counter arguments with you two.

If I can admit that in many of the cases you have said you both are right. Like mescaline is a safer recreational drug then MDMA. I agree. But you if you can't even listen to what I am saying about the many cases where that argument is not true and why its not true then whats the point of even having this discussion?

You're the one who is biased! If you can't see that, I'm sorry. There's no getting through to you.

That's exactly my point. It's frustrating. Coatl get's it, Soulfood get's it, this is so frustrating Burnt. I think you don't want to see my point and you avoid confronting it, and instead go way off with some other subject matter that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. It's frustrating.

There's no need for that kind of language Burnt. I don't agree with you and I am disappointed that you choose to use words like that to bolster your argument.

well I gotta agree with burnt in one major thing, though.. It is absolutely useless to compare two so abstract categories such as 'naturals' and 'unnaturals' because first of all these definitions are arguable, and second of all there are huge differences inside of each category... How could one be reasonable when making a value judgement that incorporates all those differences ? I would say that is not possible... What is 'better' or 'worse' depends on what categories we consider in the positive sides and what we consider on the negative sides

I think that we can only look at individual cases, having clear criteria defined so we can talk about why we consider such thing better or worse

So for example, 69ron, you used at least 2 criteria in different parts of the discussion as to why you consider naturals better: One is history of usage that indicates or not safety, the other is sustainability (when you mentioned that plants do it ecologically-balanced while chemical labs dont). Is there anything else you'd like to add?

In the first point, it also became clear that its not that naturals are inherently better, because there are naturals that show, through human usage, that they are NOT safe, yes?.. So the argument would be more correct saying that 'some' naturals are better than unnaturals. I'll leave this part here for now.

The second part is also quite tricky to argue, because this pressuposes that any plant-drug will be balanced in its ecosystem while every lab wont.. But Syrian Rue, for example, can be an invasive species... On the other hand, peyote in the wild is near extinction, so consuming it is not a sustainable act.. On the other hand, what if its a smaller ecologically-minded lab, that compensates its C02, that cares for where the chemicals come from, that uses renewable energy, that attempts to use more natural chemicals, that uses part of the profit for nature conservation, etc? Im talking hypothetically here, of course, there may or there may not be such a laboratory, but in theory it could exist, and what im getting at is, wouldnt it be better, in this criteria we are talking about, to, say, consume some synthesized mescaline from such conscious-lab, then to take some rare peyote taken from the wild, or to consume some harmine/harmaline made there instead of planted in an area where it starts messing with the local ecosystem? There are plenty other examples, im sure, where we could give more nuances to this..

So why dont we look at specific examples instead, and then we can discuss which one we preffer or not? Or otherwise, why dont we specify exactly what are the criteria we use to consider one thing better than the other and then we can see if there are flaws in such criteria?


lastly, once again, lets keep this discussion civil, yes?

This discussion is going to go one forever. The argument of natural vs. unnatural has so many levels to it.

Everyone knows natural is not always better, but in most cases it is. Those of us who prefer natural over manmade foods are eating healthier foods. There is no debate about that. I am healthier than people who choose to eat artificial sweeteners, and other man made junk.

There are so many examples of why natural is normally better. But not always. But most of the time it is.

I'll give more examples as time passes. There's are so many examples to draw from it's amazing.

Be healthy. Eat organically grown food with 100% natural ingredients. Don't settle for anything less.

Here's a great example.

The apple has been around for thousands of years. One day man decides to try to eat it. He finds it tastes good, and doesn't die from it. From then on, mankind has been eating applies for thousands of years to come. Today mankind still eats apples. They are good natural nourishment.

One day a chemist decides he's going to make NutraSweet and make a bunch of money off of it. This new compound will simulate the taste of sugar but give no calories. Unlike the apple which primitive man discovered many years ago without the aid of advertising from giant financial companies whose sole purpose is to make a profit off of you, NutraSweet was backed by BIG MONEY. A bunch of "tests" were performed to give to the FDA to show it was good enough to be consumed on a regular bases. These "tests" were of course doctored up. They hid known issues with their product as is typical of most companies submitting man made chemicals to the FDA. Well, the FDA would not approve it. Eventually they got a guy from the NutraSweet company to become the head of the FDA and so it then magically gets approved (VERY BIG MONEY IN PLAY HERE!)

After approval of this man made sugar, millions start using it on a daily bases. The FDA receives more complaints about health issues from the public for NutraSweet than any other compound in history. People are getting stomach problems, unusual neurological problems, the list goes on and on.

This I think is a classic example of my point.

An artificial substance often has a company backing it up. They are willing to lie right and left to get their product approved by the FDA. They don't care about YOUR HEALTH. They care about their profits.

The apple doesn't have this financial evil behind it. It's made by God, healthy, good tasting, and I'll eat it tomorrow at lunch time. Forget the NutraSweet. They can take that crap and shove it up their @#&&#*!

Don't listen to these big corporations who want you to swallow their man made junk. All they care about is profit and that's it.

Natural vs. unnatural. Make your choice wisely.