Natural and unnatural

[ohayoco]

The other argument for natural versus unnatural where natural wins is that Psilocybe or Peyote can make their psychedelics without producing any damage to the environment. Man cannot make LSD without causing damage to the environment. Making LSD requires tools, chemicals, solvents, etc., that nearly all damage the environment. So in that respect, natural is absolutely better than unnatural.

Sure sure, but that's merely a product of the historical mistake of conventional technology. Now that people are realising this mistake and embracing alternative technology, 'greenteks' will develop... as you and others are helping to do on this very site.

If you fully realise the argument you are making here, you end up living in a yurt with a group of luddite green anarchists, and you don't have enough room to grow your own botanicals because you need every piece of land you own for more important things like your inefficient organic food harvest! I'm teasing here, I'm a green myself, but there's some truth in this... we need both the old and the new ways for a sustainable future.

A hundred years ago people stopped drinking alcoholic drinks as an ethical choice because it requires so much land to grow the crops to make wine and beer... land that could be used to feed the poor. So that argument isn't REALLY about botanical vs synthetic. It's about drugs vs prohibition.

 

['Coatl]

So is opium- in fact, heroin really belongs with the naturals, because it's nothing more than a more convenient way of getting the addicts their fix.

So freebase crack-cocaine is the same as Coca leafs too... right?

It is totally insane to state that the chemical process that produces heroin is the same as scraping latex of a Poppy pod!

Natural is natural... if it comes from a botanical and goes through no chemical processing, it is natural.... otherwise it is unnatural.

:roll:

BTW, in my perfect world distiled alcohol would be illegal.

When you look at it that way, the argument isn't so clearcut.

O yes it is. A plant is a plant!

I think for altering the mind (psychoactive experience) only natural botanicals in their unprocessed (or mildly processed, such as boiling) forms with a long history of human use which proves them to be safe should be used.

This is not an insane idea.

A person who is concerned health, mind and body will be inteligent about the substances they take. Only botanicals (and sometimes the extracts there of) with long histories can offer this type of safety.

Ask your self the following Questions-

1) Does it come directly from organic botanical sources?
2) Does it have a long history of human use?
3) Does it's history of human use show that it is relatively safe?

If you can't answer yes to all those questions... don't take it!

 

[Jorkest]

distilled alcohol has many many uses though..as a sterilizer...as an inebriate...as a means to make tinctures...i could go on and on..it is extremely useful stuff

 

['Coatl]

Alright illegal is a horrible word... it would be socially unacceptable to drink distilled alcohol...

For example... you go to party and walk in with a bottle of strong distilled spirits... and people are like- "Why did you bring fuel? Did somebody run out of ethanol?"

:lol:

Your correct it does have many uses... and the best uses for distilled alcohol have nothing to do with getting drunk!

 

[69ron]

Let’s do a comparison between a natural psychedelic and an unnatural one and see how they stack up. We’ll compare LSD with mescaline (peyote). These are two drugs with similar effects.

Has the drug been used for hundreds of years and found to be relatively safe?
LSD – no (was invented in 1938 and hasn’t even been around for 100 years yet)
Peyote – yes (used for hundreds of years by Native Americans to induce visions)

Are there civilizations that have incorporated the substance into its social structure thereby showing it not to have anti-social anti-establishment effects that could be detrimental to society?
LSD – no (societies around the world have unanimously disapproved of LSD)
Peyote – yes (used for hundreds of years in a religious context by Native Americans)

Is there a way to produce it without using toxic substances that poison the earth?
LSD – no (chemicals, tools, and solvents used nearly all pollute the environment)
Peyote – yes (simply plant a seed in soil, give sun, and water)

Are there known deaths related to its use?
LSD – no
Peyote – no

Are you sure there are no harmful chemical residues present (benzene, etc.)?
LSD – no (a hit on thick blotter paper can contain up to 3 mg of unknown toxins)
Peyote – yes (the plant makes mescaline without any harmful by products)

Are you sure it was synthesized/made properly and not toxic?
LSD – no (chemists make mistakes, they are only human)
Peyote – yes (the plant makes mescaline perfectly every time)

I don’t know…you weigh it out. Natural seems to be better to me.

 

[40oztofreedom]

Then why is the topic called "Natural and Unnatural"
Be more clear on the subject.

Because people here keep using the naturalistic fallacy as an argument, when it isn't one, so I called it that so that people as yet unaware of this mistake will be attracted to the thread, read it, and then the same old arguments will no longer crop up all over the place in different threads

In other words, so that people stop citing something being natural as a reason for it being good... instead, if it applies, argue that it is sustainable and therefore good, because that would be a valid point.

Well that makes more sense now.

Thank you.

 

['Coatl]

That's a good reinterepation. I like it.

 

[burnt]

Yeah but when it comes to the major drugs of addiction (heroin, crack, meth) that are ruining people's lives, they are all unnatural man made products either totally synthetic or extracted and highly concentrated by man. None are found in nature in a useable form. Nature doesn’t make drugs like that in useable form.

Well many of the problems associated with their use is man made ie. prohibition. But your right that freebasing and smoking pure cocaine is not natural and by doing it that way is increasing its dangerous side effects. But also a danger with consuming certain plant botanicals is that you do not know the dose you are taking as plant material varies. This can inadvertently lead to death or health problems.

Let’s do a comparison between a natural psychedelic and an unnatural one and see how they stack up. We’ll compare LSD with mescaline (peyote). These are two drugs with similar effects.

I don't agree with this conclusion at all. Mescaline requires a high dose 200-1gram of material. This is why it makes you sick when you take it. Being sick when you take it is a toxic side effect. LSD does not cause this. LSD is so potent your body only needs to deal with a small amount of substance. LSD has a better safety in terms of its dose response. If you take too much mescaline you can die (although that never really happens). The same may be true for lsd but at a dose that is soo soooooo soooooo much higher then that needed for effects.

As far as impurities go that is a biased statement because it depends on who makes it how they purify it. The cactus is also loaded with toxic impurities. Of course you won't go eating enough cactus to cause serious health problems but still there are toxic compounds present in that plant. Again why you vomit your brains out when you eat it.

 

[69ron]

Let’s do a comparison between a natural psychedelic and an unnatural one and see how they stack up. We’ll compare LSD with mescaline (peyote). These are two drugs with similar effects.

I don't agree with this conclusion at all. Mescaline requires a high dose 200-1gram of material. This is why it makes you sick when you take it. Being sick when you take it is a toxic side effect. LSD does not cause this.

That’s complete bullshit based on rumors! Nausea has nothing to do with toxicity. If you spin yourself around and get motion sick, that doesn’t mean spinning around is toxic. If you ride a roller coaster and get sick, that doesn’t meant he roller coaster is toxic. Some psychedelics cause motion sickness in certain people. It has nothing to do with toxicity.

SWIM has had both mescaline and LSD. Mescaline has NEVER made SWIM sick or even a little nauseated. Only some people get nausea from mescaline. Same is true for LSD. LSD has made SWIM vomit a few times.

Mescaline is an extremely safe drug. There’s never been a single death reported from its use. NEVER.

As far as impurities go that is a biased statement because it depends on who makes it how they purify it. The cactus is also loaded with toxic impurities. Of course you won't go eating enough cactus to cause serious health problems but still there are toxic compounds present in that plant. Again why you vomit your brains out when you eat it.

Toxic! More bullshit! The natives that eat peyote have been proven to be healthier than those who don’t. It's considered a very valuable medicine with tons of healing properties. Do some research on the subject before spreading such misinformation.

Natives who ingest Peyote have been shown to be healthier than those who don’t. You can NOT say the same thing about LSD. Peyote, besides being a psychedelic, has antibiotics in it, vitamins, minerals, etc. It’s an herbal food with many health benefits.

LSD doesn’t contain vitamins, minerals, antibiotics, etc., but it can contain benzene (a carcinogen) and other highly toxic chemicals used in its manufacture. It also may cause cancer (Timothy Leary who used LSD many times died of cancer). Anyone claiming such a drug is healthier than using peyote is grossly misinformed.

 

[endlessness]

claiming lsd may cause cancer and using tim leary to corroborate is pure speculation, several people die of cancer who have never taken lsd and several people have not died of cancer who do take lsd. show me one trustable published report linking both.

also, in the papers by halpern examining peyote users, he mentioned himself that one cannot tell if its specifically the peyote that helps them in their health (and diminished alcoholism), or how much is due to the social aspects, to the group support, and so on.

Im not saying peyote is toxic or anything like that, on the contrary I think all entheogens can greatly improve one's health, but im just saying its not so simple to say that they alone make this or that

 

[69ron]

claiming lsd may cause cancer and using tim leary to corroborate is pure speculation, several people die of cancer who have never taken lsd and several people have not died of cancer who do take lsd. show me one trustable published report linking both.

Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t. That's my point. Who knows? Do you know? No you don't. No such long term studies exist for LSD, and there isn't a single large group of people who use LSD regularly that you could use as a testing ground. But there is for peyote!

Peyote has been used for hundreds of years with no apparent negative health problems showing up in a large population of users, and in fact peyote users are shown to be healthier than non peyote users among the natives. Peyote contains antibiotics which may help explain this.


How do you know that LSD users won't develop birth defects in their great great grand children? You don't. It hasn't been around for 200 years yet. You do know that peyote doesn't because there are many countless generations of peyote users who are healthy. It’s been used for hundreds of years and proven to be safe in long term societal use. You cannot say that about LSD or any drug invented by man in the last century.


If you want to take chances with your precious genetic line of decent, then by all means, try all the unnatural drugs man made within the last century and let's see what happens to your genetic line of decent 200 years from now. SWIM will not do any such thing. He NO LONGER USES LSD or any such man made drugs. It's not worth the health risk. Despite the positive psychedelic effects from LSD, SWIM is very sorry he ever took any LSD because it's long term health risks are COMPLETELY UNKNOWN. SWIM feels like an idiot for ever putting that in his body.

 

[endlessness]

what about all these solvents and chemicals SWIY has been using and exposed to? Or the car pollution, or agrotoxic in the food, GM food, hidrogenated fat, cellphone radiation (even if you dont own one yourself), artificial light at night, electromagnetic radiations of all sorts, fluorine in toothpaste, chemicals of shampoo, etc etc?

there's risks and benefits in all things. each one has to measure what they think they feel is good for them.

Your quite extreme argument of "then take whatever man made thing and lets see what happens with your grandgrandchildren" is quite unreasonable for SWIM. He is vegetarian and has very good eating habits, doesnt take even caffeine or alcohol (only entheogens and lsd), healthy and always doing things and being physically active, being balanced with family, friends and wife, studying, consuming consciously, planting trees and trying to improve himself while helping the world. He thinks he has his bases covered pretty well and is trying to leave the best contribution to the world and demonstrating his gratitude for existance as possible. SWIM sees his body as sacred and respects it very much.

So having this in mind and having researched with multi-sided information, SWIM thinks LSD is safe for him. Its his own decision that hurts nobody else. He does this with full conscience of his actions. Theres no evidence of genetic damage with lsd so SWIM sees no reason to suppose damage of the 5th generation. Millions of people have consumed lsd, lived and had normal kids and died, and maybe their kids already had kids that are also normal. If you dont want to take it, its fine, but please dont post as if you're preaching on SWIM (if you're not, then sorry for misunderstanding)


As for the whole discussion of natural and unnatural, everything is owned by mother earth, or life, so it is all 'natural'. The distinction is between things that are out of the harmony, we could say, and things that are harmonious with the underlying unity or pattern. Like a cancer cell, it is still part of the body, excepts it 'forgets' it and starts reproducing and growing unharmoniously. Stuff humans make can 'blend' in with all of creation, or be highly dissonant. We see in different cultures, certain temples, artifacts, art forms and so on that fit with this category, which demonstrates a certain level of conscience of the one who made it.

Also, as it has been said, there are natural things that are very toxic and dangerous, even natural drugs that also have been used for thousands of years. For example tobacco. It has been smoked (and chewed and ingested and snuffed) for thousands of years, is maybe THE most disseminated drug in the amazon, and yet, we all know the dangers of tobacco smoke. Also datura of all kinds are very important to many natives. I know Im steering as far away from datura as possible, it doesnt matter how long or by who its been used. I trust my consciousness, not if somebody uses or not. I read the information available and decide, trying to indeed have all the next generations in mind.

 

[69ron]

Come on. You must have a better argument than that. That's the same old stuff rehashed. Datura...tobacco...car pollution...none of that is at all convincing me that LSD is anywhere near as healthy as mescaline is.

 

[endlessness]

Come on. You must have a better argument than that. None of that is at all convincing me that LSD is anywhere near as healthy as mescaline is.

what ? what you say doesnt make sense. I NEVER tried to say lsd is healthier than mescaline. I said that everything in life has risks and benefits and that each one has to consciously choose what he wants. I also said that the whole natural/unnatural discussion doesnt make sense because it stems from a naive romantic view of nature and an abstract separation of humanity from the larger unity (life) which encompasses it . There are things from nature that are not good for us (or for me at least, like datura), and there are man-made things that I think are fair and reasonable to use. Im not telling you to do as I say, you do what you want and I do what I want, yes?

 

[69ron]

Your argument about tobacco serves only to strengthen my argument against using LSD. Tobacco has been around long enough to show it’s unhealthy. LSD hasn’t been tested nearly as much as tobacco has. Tobacco smokers have been proven to be more likely to get cancer. That’s the beauty of it being natural and in wide spread use. We have a large testing ground for it that goes back hundreds of years. We don’t have that for LSD. But we have that with mescaline (peyote).

I'm comparing LSD with mescaline because these are two prime examples of the natural versus unnatural argument. They are drugs with similar effects that serve the same purpose and can thus be very well compared to each other. We can't compare tobacco with LSD or mescaline. It’s apples and oranges.

 

[endlessness]

yes exactly, you're comparing it. If it makes sense to you to make this distinction, then go ahead. For me it doesnt and I got a clear conscience about it. I was just trying to put some perspective on it but never mind

 

[69ron]

As I see it, all drugs less than 200 years old are RESEARCH CHEMICALS. They may even cause birth defects several generations down the line. We just DO NOT KNOW because they haven’t stood the test of TIME.

 

[69ron]

This really makes the point of natural versus unnatural as clear as can be.

What would you give your children to drink?

A – “juice” made from 100% artificial flavors, 100% artificially added vitamins, and 100% artificial sweetener (like Aspartame for example).

B – 100% all natural juice freshly squeezed from oranges.

 

[Jorkest]

think id have to go with...uhh B

 

[polytrip]

Overall i tend to agree with the statement that herbal material is superiour to stuff coming out of a lab. I like shrooms more then LSD.
But to me it's not that black/white.
Sometimes, is consider the lab stuff an improvement to teh stuff nature has brought us. I see LSD as an improvement to LSA, for instance.