Is it OK for me to post a DMT extraction video here at the forum ?!
I`m sorry if that sounds stupid, but I don't want to do anything against the rules !!!!

I would really hate to see it chopped up and used in a news segment on television. I vote no.

I see your point !

Anything you undergo during an extraction process is easily understood when properly worded and presented (which is also simple). Pictures of the final product and certain stages throughout the process would be both much more acceptable and less compromising/incriminating. For these two reasons I see no use for video guides.

Ok I will post some pictures and explain a bit !!!!
I did not want to fuck things for anyone, but make it easier !!!!
but I see how stupid would be to post a video now !!!! lol

Moreover a video would encourage new members to just "follow the recipe" rather than trying to understand the chemistry behind it.

Personally I find pictorials and texts much easier to follow than videos, because you can read/look at your own speed and not race to pause the vid when you didn't understand something.

There has been this trend to make videos of everything lately (not extractions but computer stuff for example), and I don't really find them as helpful as I would a good written explanation with well made and thought out pictures/drawings/schemes etc.

The medium video is great for other things... and it's use is certainly evolving. This form however I don't think is useful.

cheers
Enoon

I think a video would be like an extraction tutorial for dummies, but our society is not ready for it ........imagine this video on fucking TV !!! fuck no ( at least not in a negative away )
unless Martha Stewart would fucking extract DMT in her show !!!!! LOL
Since I cant post anywhere in the forum ...... where should be the right place for me to post my extraction experience pictures and text ???

Well said

Hey

Check out the attitude page:



I would guess this point encompasses posting extraction videos on the DMT-Nexus aswell.

Much love,
Sally
xx

This is very true. From personal experience, I am glad I had to read like 17 teks 5-6 times each, because I think it is very important that you understand why you are doing what you are doing and not just that you should be doing them. I think you should know why you're using an acid, why you're using a base and why you're using the nonpolar solvent. You should not just understand that you have to use them, but why they're gonna help you get done what you wish to accomplish. Without this knowledge, if you're required to tweak the tek perhaps based on the availability of materials, it seems likely that you can screw it up as you try to reconstruct the tek along the way.

There is a good reason for not having videos: They give the impression of BLATANT DISREGARD for legalities--an attitude that the Nexus doesn't want to give the impression of promoting.

But those who say "there's no need for videos," or take similar positions, seem to be rationalizing. If you wanted to explain to a friend how to do an extraction, the natural tendency would be to SHOW them--invite them to watch as you did one and explained about it. ALL instruction/teaching is most naturally conducted by "showing," which is just "live video in person."

Making a video is just "giving a recipe?" No, WRITING A RECIPE DOWN is just giving a recipe. How many cooking TV shows and cooking videos are there? There are a gazillion cooking videos on youtube--for every style of cooking or cuisine you can imagine. On many google searches, one automatically finds a video on the results list. Personally, sometimes when I'm doing a search (on just about ANYTHING), I actually search YOUTUBE first, before even TRYING google!

If it weren't for the legal issues, we would have lots of videos of extractions (and vaporizing techniques--and anything else you can imagine), and no one would say they were anything but a normal expression of sharing ideas and methods. There's nothing wrong with videos--after person-to-person expression, they are the most direct way of sharing between people. Videos are what made Youtube an extraordinary internet success and phenomenon.

You can post in the general extraction questions.

'for dummies' is probably not what we want, no matter whether the world is ready or not. We encourage intelligent and responsible use, which includes doing the leg-work of getting as informed as possible and to perform extractions in a safe manner. Extractions don't require detailed knowledge of organic chemistry, but at least the basics of what you are doing should be understood.

Personally I think the fact that it requires some work to be ready for an extraction a good thing. It gets us ready internally, making us more appreciative of the whole process of the psychedelic experience which IMO does not begin or end with taking the substance itself.

Sure we want people as informed as possible, but we also want people mindful as possible and so the idea of making a video 'for dummies' to me sounds like a bad idea.

Now I understand SWIMfriend's point, but somehow I still find video tutorials often lacking in depth and hard to follow when I have specific problems. Not all of them though.

While I think we all agree on not wanting videos about extractions, how about making little tutorial videos (animations?) on e.g. the chemical processes involved in alkaloid extractions - like A/B reactions - maybe using legal compounds such as harmalas or something even more benign and less associated to 'drugs'. These could be greatly helpful for people unfamiliar with the terrain, no? Would there be any reason this could be considered a bad idea?

It would not be a recipe or anything, but a kind of informational video - educational maybe even.

Other ideas for videos could be: tips and tricks of how to separate solvents (like olive oil and water) - again without the context of extractions or drugs - show different ways to separate the layers of two solvents (sep funnel, decanting, pipette, syringe...).

videos on safety precautions - what safety equipment is needed and what not to do, when working with dangerous chemicals such as acids or bases, volatile and explosive solvents etc...

As long as the videos don't explicitly or immediately have anything to do with illegal procedures I don't see why they can't exist...? Perhaps I am missing something here. Would love to hear some more discussion on this matter.

I think this is actually a very positive and constructive idea so long as the context for it is explicitly legal. Perhaps this could be done on a web page separate from the nexus amidst a handful of basic chemistry techniques that perhaps don't even pertain to the extraction process at all.

I have to agree with you !!!! I search for everything on YT first !!!!
you can learn how to make almost anything on YT !!!!


About the "for dummies " its just a way of explaining that it will be easy to understand !!!
I mean.....before I new how to extract....I considered my self dumb about extraction, but I` not dumb !!! you get the point ?!
sometimes writing can miss lead you !!!

but there are good videos with total legal content in it !!!




Fucking love this forum !!!!!!

Still, Motorhash. It's for VERY GOOD REASONS that members here DO NOT WANT youtube videos of DMT extractions. They would ONLY SERVE to promote the idea of illegal use of plants widely in the general public--which can lead to an overzealous interest in the topic from legislators and law enforcement.

It's best if those who have developed an interest in the topic eventually find the Nexus (and similar sites) by their own efforts.

Most members here immediately flag youtube videos about the extraction of illegal drugs from plants (or explicit videos about the use of DMT); that won't change.

I get that, but its bad to post videos like I did too ???? because they can be related to illegal stuff ?!
I feel so bad, this shit is fucked up, in a world where cigarettes kill 450 thousand a year JUST in the USA ...........and we have problems with organic extraction !!!
In a world where DNA the secret of life ( what defines living, growing and dying ) was discovered on a LSD trip and people can see the truth !!!

The reason why I posted this questions here was first of all because this is First Questions for Information and I just want to get the feeling of the forum and the people as well !
If by any means you guys prefer that I delete the topic......is all good with me !

like I said before not trying to fuck shit up but understand it !
I`m trying to understand what types of info I can share here !!!

Hey now, let's not get ahead of ourselves...Rosalind Franklin figured out the whole DNA thing independently (and most likely before) Watson & Crick, without dropping acid. So while the inspiration for W&C's discovery relating to DNA could be said to be LSD-induced, to give the accolades for the discovery and its resulting effects to LSD is rather misleading.

Francis Crick, the Nobel Prize-winning father of modern genetics, was under the influence of LSD when he first deduced the double-helix structure of DNA nearly 50 years ago.

"The abrasive and unorthodox Crick and his brilliant American co-researcher James Watson famously celebrated their eureka moment in March 1953 by running from the now legendary Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge to the nearby Eagle pub, where they announced over pints of bitter that they had discovered the secret of life.

Crick, who died a few years ago, aged 88, later told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD then an experimental drug used in psychotherapy to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD, not the Eagle's warm beer, that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize."

I agree with SB: Rosalind Franklin did the hard part. Anyone with decent interference pattern reading skills would have figured out the structure of DNA. Franklin was the only one who could get it crystalized, and then W&C more or less bullied their way into seeing the data.

Linus Pauling was also on his way to have a look, and the US State Dept. held up his passport because of his anti-nuke work. He also would have surely figured out the structure.

Rosalind Franklin deserves the lion's share of credit; but she was dead by the time they handed out the Nobel for it. It's REALLY unfair that "school room history" has not given her the credit she had due her.