And on the subject of economic and ecological impact of material intensive drug refinery, I think most could contend that apart from large-scale and shoddy clanlabs (methlabs and cocaine extraction labs in particular), the impact of refinery pales in comparison to many if not most of people's daily activities. But again, this is still a matter of cost-benefit analysis and will vary in every case, for every individual. We live in industrialized societies, everything comes at a cost, so the question we're faced with is whether those things are worthwhile or not.

Yip I try to only incorporate things in my life if they have come straight from nature. Things that are straight from nature are usually better for your mind and body. Obviously there are toxic and harmful chemicals in nature that can kill us but those are easily avoidable. Those toxic chemicals that are from nature don't harm or destroy the earth like our processed chemicals do and for me that's the big difference. Most of the problems that we are having now with our environment is due to us plundering the earth for carbon that has been stored in our earth for thousands of years and humans have created a society that cant function without it which is seriously damaging.


Much Peace

I agree 100%. The part in bold is something everyone should be thinking about all the time. We should take care of the earth, and never pollute it.

I understand and actually agree with what you're getting at (for different reasons), but I think your reasoning is too skewed. The part in bold is wrong. Loads of toxic chemicals from nature DO 'harm and destroy the earth' (and by earth you mean habitable environment). Like water poisoned by mineral deposits, bacteria, viruses, algae blooms etc. Not all natural poisons are biodegradable, particularly not the minerals. Pollution is caused by TOO MUCH of a substance... any substance.


They're not easily avoidable whatsoever. Try living a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and see if you don't end up dead like the guy in 'Into the Wild'! Our ancestors relied entirely on knowledge handed down by generations upon generations through trial and error, thanks to those who died or were weakened by horrible conditions such as cyanide poisoning until someone in the tribe worked out that those beans must be cooked for 8 hours first, etc. Reading my plantlore book, I find it scary just how poisonous our natural environment is. Many plants have one part edible, such as the root, and one part poisonous, such as the leaves. Nowadays we grow a small proportion of the plant world ourselves- the species which our ancestors found most nourishing and safe- which was a big step up from the perilous hunter gatherer lifestyle.

The reason why manmade chemicals are dangerous is because we can't really rely on our ancient knowledge base to understand how to deal with such chemicals. Everyone knows that if you put excrement into the water supply, or dig your well into the wrong patch of ground, people are going to get ill. We worked it out and changed our cultural practices to ensure it doesn't happen any more (although it still does really). But we are still undergoing the necessary cultural changes to ensure that people stop dumping manmade chemicals into the water supply. Not many people in the world are actually evil enough to kill others deliberately- I'd imagine most polluters do so because they don't think what they're doing will definitely have a negative effect. In any case, I imagine as much polluton is caused by 'natural' chemcals as 'unnatural' ones.

Your points make sense at one level, but are also flawed at many levels in respect to the arguments posed in this thread.

For example, cactus is VERY BENEFICIAL to the environment. Peyote is fantastic in this respect. The process of mescaline produced by peyote is beneficial to the environment while the process of mescaline made in a lab is harmful to the environment. This is obvious. The solvents, precursors, etc., come from an industry that regularly pollutes the environment.

There is no way you can bend and twist the argument to change that reality.

If you prefer synthetic mescaline which pollutes the world I live on and love, I'd like to kindly ask that you build yourself a spacecraft and find somewhere else to live because I love this planet and I don’t want to see people harming it just to get high. I don't like it, and I'm not alone in this opinion. I hate having to share the planet with people that don't respect it.

i agree with that...SWIM lives in a fishing community..and many of the fishermen...dont give a shit...they throw their trash into the ocean..their boats leak oil..and it makes him very very unhappy...he does everything he can to make sure HE doesnt pollute..but its awful that for every one of him..there are dozens of people that just dont care...its sickening..

[EDIT: sorry I violated my 'personal identity protection policy' here so I've edited it out for piece of mind. It was just a rant anyway!]

That last part you quoted was not directed at you ohayoco. That was directed at everyone. I should have made that clear.

It bothers me when people pick something artificial over something natural because 9 times out of 10, the artificial one pollutes the environment many times more than the natural one does.

That is why SWIM is trying to get people to use d-limonene instead of the other more harmful solvents.

I would much rather buy something made with 100% natural ingredients because I know the processing that goes into the artificial ingredients is usually much worse for the environment.

Pointing out that some natural things are not good, is not helping the Green movement at all. Of course a volcano irrupting kills all sorts of life and is completely natural. So yes, you're right, some natural things are not good for you. But for a person to choose synthetic DMT over natural DMT, they are making a choice to harm the environment and I find that intolerable. I didn't say YOU did that. I'm speaking to everyone. My anger is not directed at you. It's directed at all those out there doing this crap to our world.

Ok. Yes I agree with you about choosing products that the natural is generally the better choice. But as I said the only reason why is because natural stuff is a known quantity, whereas manmade is untested. Like how you can't buy lead water pipes any more because we now know they can give you lead poisoning, but the choice is now between plastic and ceramic or copper. The plastic is an unknown quantity because of the possibility of the softening chemicals leaching, so yes the ceramic or copper is a better choice... but I'd choose all three over the lead ones my ancestors drank from. Maybe one day we'll know which manmade chemicals are harmless (like you guys tell me we are starting to realise with LSD, for example, which is better for you than natural LSA I'm told). That was my point- that it's about understanding the effects of a process/material/chemical, not whether it's natural or not. And until something is fully understood, it should be treated with caution.

It is very unlikely that you do not engage in processes that result in just as much damage to the environment as synthesizing a chemical dose. The process of extracting mescaline unless using the newer green tech are just as bad as synthesizing mescaline. Even so the process of obtaining the necessary products may very well lead to some pollution. Just because something is natural does not mean the process of obtaining and refining ti does not pollute. The precursors of synthetic mescaline are no worse than using petroleum solvents. there is nothing particularly environmentally damaging than the synthesis.

While I agree one should do their best to minimize their carbon foot print and save the rainforest (I have done ecological work in the rainforest and recycle ... btw) however we almost all engage in activities that at some level lead to pollution of the environment. It is very difficult to not. Organic synthesis is a minimal contributor to this. Further more synthesis of mescaline is even less of a contributor. Many industries pollute and you buying and using these products contribute to these processes.

^^Yes not to mention that in a great many cases synthesizing a molecule rather then cutting down a thousand trees to get it can be far less polluting. Look at taxol they used to get it from bark of the yew tree now they either try to make it by cell culture or by taking the needles of the yew tree and synthesizing it from precursors. A far less polluting 'artificial' process. Also realize that some synthetic chemicals because of their structure and potency and ease of preparation are far simpler to obtain then certain molecules or products we used to obtain from nature. There are so many common polymers plastics and simple medicines that confirm the above statement.

If we didn't have artificial products human beings would be polluting the earth way more at our current population levels then we are today. I mean if all of a sudden there was 6 billion people and we had no "artificial" technology. We would have no way to treat sewage (which destroys more lakes and rivers then any synthetic chemical process), we would have no way to grow enough food on less land (slash and burn agriculture sound like a better alternative?), we would have no generate heat without cutting down massive amounts of trees, and the list goes on and on.

This whole argument about man made versus natural is so misleading and built on emotions rather then rational thought that it really does the entire environmental movement a huge injustice. I blame most of these emotional irrational statements and ideas for the large scale failure of the environmental movement. Its turned into a movement that should be about finding solutions into a movement that's now about forcing people to do something because some beurocract thinks its less polluting when in most cases its not and behind the scenes they are making cash from it. Just look at Al Gore and his carbon tax schemes. Its going to make him rich and not change a god damn thing for our environment.

There are lots of things people can do and products they can buy that are less polluting on the whole but you can't base that decision solely on natural or artificial. If we did we would destroy the earths natural resources much faster then we are now. If people only used d-limonene because they think its more natural as a solvent in large scale industrial processes we would cover the earth in orange orchards and have to divert land that was once used for agriculture or just forest into orchards. Not to mention all the trees you would need to cut down to fire the stills and water you would need to fill them.

Many petrol products like solvents are waste products of other industries so using them in a sense is like recycling and in some cases far less polluting then the seemingly more natural alternatives. Like naptha and other solvents are essentially waste products of petroleum refining. Most of the petrol goes into making gasoline and stuff like that so certain distillates are divered into solvent production usually as a by product.

Ecological processes must be looked at on the large scale with all the dots connected otherwise you can be mislead to believing anything is good or bad.

Burnt, Bufoman, it just sounds like you guys are trying to legitimize damaging the environment for the sake of making synthetic drugs by given these bazaar comparisons to other things that are tragic that have little to do with this subject. The examples you guys give are way out there. It's that kind of thinking that allows this crap to continue. The earth should be respected, not trashed.

The following are harmful to the environment because of the technology needed to make them:
Synthetic mescaline.
Synthetic LSA
Synthetic LSD
Synthetic psilocybin/psilocin
Synthetic DMT
Synthetic bufotenine
Synthetic RCs

The following are beneficial to the environment because they are life forms that are part of the ecosystem:
Marijuana
San Pedro cactus
Peyote cactus
Ololuiqui
Hawaiian Baby Woodrose
Psilocybin mushrooms
Yopo
Datura stramonium

Why thank you for seeing exactly where I'm coming from


Much Peace

If we limit the discussion to recreational drugs then these arguments hold some water. Because you can say that look doing these substances (plants) is nearly harmless to the environment because in many cases it is (its just a plant). Unless you are harvesting them to excess which has happened with peyote although I am fairly sure that kind of thing has been restricted due to increased cultivation and with all the knowledge about other cacti there is no reason to plunder peyote from the wild. But I don't this is just a discussion about drugs (or entheogens), but everything from food to energy.

The other cases I have brought up the natural versus man made are not out there at all. If we look at all processes and products anyone can come up with hundreds where an artificial process is better for an overall system because its either more efficient, it requires less land, less energy etc. I can cite specifics but is it really necessary?

I am all for respecting other forms of life and our planet. But if we followed your line of reasoning throughout all things we would destroy this planet faster and our species rather quickly.

How are you going to heat your home in the winter without petrol or natural gas?
How are you going to provide food for people in the winter without transporting and refrigeration as well as sterilization and preservation?
How are you going to treat disease for which we have no cure and none is apparent in nature (even if a cure is found in nature you still may need to synthesize it to make it feasable to use)?
How are we going to feed the 6-7 billion people on this planet without destroying more ecosystems for food production?

So basically what I am saying is we need MORE technology not LESS if we want to live in better balance with our planet. Or kill off half the human race and restrict breeding which is just wrong and evil. Or force everyone to basically stop traveling, eating too much, among many other things we all do which is also wrong and evil.

I am accusing both of you of a very simplistic view point that tends towards further destruction of both human civilization and our planet not improvement. Its not an intention of your view but rather the reality of the consequences of abandoning technology or 'chemical' processes simply because its man made or artificial. Note I am not accusing either of you of specifically of engaging in practices that harm the environment. But these kind of statements that are based more in ignorance then in fact are also why people don't take most environmentalists seriously because they are not offering practical solutions and that's a serious problem because there are MANY legit environmental concerns. Its also why certain environmental initiatives can go horribly wrong.

SWIM has been actively involved in environmental research and at times in SWIMs life SWIM saw things very much the same as both of you. But experience has taught SWIM that such views are way too simple to solve the mess the human race is currently in. Life will go on whether or not we are here but I think our species is too special (despite its flaws) and should avoid destroying itself. Progress and balance is possible but it requires workable solutions which really does require technology and other 'non natural' things.


I am open for further discussion.

i didnt really read your whole post burnt...but i do agree that technology is what we need more of...but it needs to be used in the correct manner..

Yes for sure. However I do must also object to a common environmentalists notion that the only way to ensure technology is being used for the greater good (whatever that means) and not just by greedy entrapeneurs (whatever that means) is to put the government in charge. This is the real problem with the modern environmental movement and its consequences are real.

I am not trying to dispute the fact that there are many advantages to doing things a bit more naturally (although I have some issue using that term). Health and medicine can be improved upon as well as economic and social well being by doing things a bit more green (although I also have issues with that term). But I will not base my decisions on whats natural and whats not which is such a loose term anyway.

I want to give you a high-five for your posts in here, burnt.

I was about to chime in and say that this discussion FAR surpasses drugs/preparations, but you said that (better) and then some.

Glad you enjoyed thanks

Also yea I am not trying to create debate or argue but make the point that the world isn't always black and white.

It's simple.

A cactus is organic. It can grown and produced on it's own without any intervention by man.

Something like... let's say MDMA is synthesized. Man must create it.

If you can't see the distinction... you may be blind (philosophically speaking).

That doesn't mean MDMA is bad for you because it was man made. That doesn't mean cactus is good for you even though its natural. There are plenty of cacti out there that will kill a human. There a plently of man made chemicals that can kill a person or a animal plant whatever. But there are just as many if not more in nature. I can think of so many seriously toxic compounds in nature. Not that they create massive environmental catastrophies but still they can and do kill.

PEOPLE ARE NATURAL TOO!

Look ok mescaline its natural. But the cactus is biosynthesizing it. Its making it. Its synthesizing its own chemical to defend itself (thats why mescaline is there not for us). So whats the difference if a human being makes a chemical or a plant?