-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
Natural and unnatural
- Thread starter ohayoco
- Start date
Didn't realize how much non posionous cacti there are! Have to change that to there are many plants that can kill a person.
Yeah, I have never actually been able to come across a deadly cacti (tho there are plenty that would make you very sick). Should you find one, please let me know!
I don't believe that. I believe the cactus produces mescaline to communicate with humanity.
Once again... of course all plants are not safe! The reason we know this (without eating them ourselves) is because for 1000s of years there were actually some humans who ingested piosonous plants... with botanicals you have a LONG HISTORY OF USE and we are able to pick out which ones are safe and which ones are not! THIS is one reason botanicals are soooo much safe! We know the long term effects!!!
Remember the 4 questions-
If you can't answer "Yes" to all those questions than (personally) I wouldn't use it!
I don't believe that. I believe the cactus produces mescaline to communicate with humanity.
Once again... of course all plants are not safe! The reason we know this (without eating them ourselves) is because for 1000s of years there were actually some humans who ingested piosonous plants... with botanicals you have a LONG HISTORY OF USE and we are able to pick out which ones are safe and which ones are not! THIS is one reason botanicals are soooo much safe! We know the long term effects!!!
Remember the 4 questions-
If you can't answer "Yes" to all those questions than (personally) I wouldn't use it!
burnt said:
Don't assume you know why another species makes something and then post it as if it’s a fact.
You don't know that mescaline is made in the cactus for that reason. No one knows why it's there.
If it was there for self defense, it’s sure not working that well. The reason peyote is going extinct is because people are over harvesting it for the mescaline. That doesn’t sound like a good defense mechanism if you ask me.
burnt said:
If we're comparing mescaline with MDMA, which is not really a good comparison, mescaline is clearly healthier for you. Long term studies done on mescaline using Indians show it to he harmless. MDMA, well we all know what sort of damage long term MDMA causes:
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said:
I think 69ron has this covered.
Thanks 69ron.
There is REPEATABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of the almost absolute safety (concerning numbers of recorded deaths, e.g.- 0-1 per 10,000 years in the case of Ayahuasca) in terms of toxicology of Peyotl, Ayahuasca and Psilocybin containing Mushrooms!
So far scientific evidence does not exist for drugs such as LSD-25, MDMA or any of the research chemicals, however... in 100-250 years from now, after intense studies, we may be able to find the full long term effects of such drugs, I may consider taking them (if I were alive at the time)... however I still prefer a 1000 study but that is just me, I like to KNOW what I'm taking is safe... not HOPE it's safe, but that is just me! I like to be careful with my brain! I only got ONE!!!
Thanks 69ron.
There is REPEATABLE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of the almost absolute safety (concerning numbers of recorded deaths, e.g.- 0-1 per 10,000 years in the case of Ayahuasca) in terms of toxicology of Peyotl, Ayahuasca and Psilocybin containing Mushrooms!
So far scientific evidence does not exist for drugs such as LSD-25, MDMA or any of the research chemicals, however... in 100-250 years from now, after intense studies, we may be able to find the full long term effects of such drugs, I may consider taking them (if I were alive at the time)... however I still prefer a 1000 study
but that is just me, I like to KNOW what I'm taking is safe... not HOPE it's safe, but that is just me! I like to be careful with my brain! I only got ONE!!!
MalargueZiggy
Rising Star
[quote='Coatl]
So far scientific evidence does not exist for drugs such as LSD-25, MDMA or any of the research chemicals, however... in 100-250 years from now, after intense studies, we may be able to find the full long term effects of such drugs, I may consider taking them (if I were alive at the time)... however I still prefer a 1000 study but that is just me, I like to KNOW what I'm taking is safe... not HOPE it's safe, but that is just me! I like to be careful with my brain! I only got ONE!!![/quote]
This is a good point, and this is the truly important difference between 'natural' and 'man made' chemicals. The opinion I take is that I only have one life and I want to experience as much as possible in this short time.
As has been pointed out, chemicals that are found packaged in a naturally occuring botanical are not inherently safer simply because they are 'natural', but in general we have much more information about them.
If you want to be completely safe follow Coatl's steps, if you want to experience everything you can then make an informed judgement about everything you do, based on slow but steady experimentation and the advise of others.
Someone needs to experiment.
So far scientific evidence does not exist for drugs such as LSD-25, MDMA or any of the research chemicals, however... in 100-250 years from now, after intense studies, we may be able to find the full long term effects of such drugs, I may consider taking them (if I were alive at the time)... however I still prefer a 1000 study
but that is just me, I like to KNOW what I'm taking is safe... not HOPE it's safe, but that is just me! I like to be careful with my brain! I only got ONE!!![/quote]This is a good point, and this is the truly important difference between 'natural' and 'man made' chemicals. The opinion I take is that I only have one life and I want to experience as much as possible in this short time.
As has been pointed out, chemicals that are found packaged in a naturally occuring botanical are not inherently safer simply because they are 'natural', but in general we have much more information about them.
If you want to be completely safe follow Coatl's steps, if you want to experience everything you can then make an informed judgement about everything you do, based on slow but steady experimentation and the advise of others.
Someone needs to experiment.
Ecologically it makes sense and this applies to a lot of plants. So from our observational perspective it seems that's why these things are made. It is a fact that the plant makes in this case mescaline biosynthetically from its own enzymes. Its tough to say WHY because in a sense I don't believe evolution does anything for a reason its just the way it is because it works. But thats more an opinion not something I can really prove even though all evidence points that way.
Also there are many studies that have been and are still being done to show how plants respond to pathogens, wounding, stress. In many cases they start to increase the production of various secondary metabolites like alkaloids flavonoids tannins terpenoids etc. There is also many genes turning on and off protein levels changing. There is a ton of evidence that points to the role of secondary metabolites as 1) defense compounds 2) communication either within the species with other plant species or with insects with fungi etc and as some argue with humans
There is no other reason for the plant to make them. If a substance plays no role it can still be in a plant simply because the selection pressure has never been strong enough to weed out that substance. That substance may also be useful in the future but there is no why it just happens. Agree but I don't base it on natural or unnatural but more on what the dangers and benefits are. I think I need to rephrase my argument.
There are some recent case reports of people dieing from things like liver toxicity from botanical substances. In many cases they are adulterated with other plants so the original plant was safe the person just as unknownly taking something wrong. And I agree there are so many safe botanical substances. I almost exclusively use plant medicines my favorite drugs are usually plants I eat mostly vegetables I love plants. I am not disputing how great so many plants are. Our entire existence depends on them and its important that the human race understands that.
Also in terms of recreational drugs yes we have much more evidence that many of the plant based ones are safer so for sure I often would use them over a synthetic one unless either I invented the synthetic one and I want to see if it works or someone else has tried it and it appears reasonably safe and worthwhile. It depends on a lot of things.
You all keeping sticking on the topic of recreational or sacred drugs but its easier to make a clear black and white distinction in your mind about them. But for people who are dieing of cancer or some infectious disease and they need a synthetic chemical to save their lives. For them its the difference between life or death. We also owe our existence to synthetic chemicals and human technology in the sense that it has allowed our food production to increase in ways that were not possible in the past and at the same time allow us to do other things besides just find food like have fun make art do science etc. Our population would have never grown this much and we would probably not be here nor would our parents.
Its impossible to base the criteria of good or bad solely on natural or unnatural. It depends on the use the role and from whose perspective. You all may like mescaline more then MDMA (so do I). But it doesn't make it bad or good. Some people benefit enourmously from it. Maybe they would benefit from mescaline too but maybe they wouldn't. Maybe they would hate it. For them its bad for you its good. You can use MDMA safely. You can also use mescaline safely. You can die from acutely taking too much of both although much easier with MDMA and you would probably never eat enough cactus to kill yourself.
There are some sensible reasons that "natural" substances would be preferred:
1) A LONG history of human testing. Like ayahuasca and mescaline. It's true that medical studies can miss things that perhaps a culture, using these substances over generations, might not miss (it CAN go in the reverse though, too). The ideal testing would be multi-generational tests run in a scientific/medical manner. Such tests have not been made on ANY substance I'm aware of.
2) Mistakes in manufacture. About 20 years ago tryptophan was taken off the market because (presumably) an Asian manufacturer screwed up their process, and the stuff they were selling made people sick. Plants generally don't make "mistakes" in their biosynthesis (but a mutation COULD end up changing the synthesis).
3) Contaminants. Plants are less likely to include "industrial type" contaminants--although they CAN. Some plants can pick up poisonous heavy metals from the ground, which people wouldn't want to be eating.
Overall, the "natural vs manmade" argument is WAY over played.
1) There are MANY poisons in many plants. Often evolved, as burnt has said, as a defense mechanism by the plant to protect it from being eaten.
2) There are MANY unknowns in plants. ALL plants are a complex soup of molecules.
3) The natural vs manmade argument in some respects is an historical (and thus somewhat outdated one): Limited understanding of food/drugs/health allowed for mistaken assumptions about food-processing and man-made medicines. Although our knowledge today is not PERFECT by any means, most of the fundamental MISUNDERSTANDINGS about biochemistry and metabolism are things of the past.
Certainly, one thing that's annoying and frustrating about "nature" people is that they would not admit that it is at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE for a totally man-made/designed substance to be PERFECTLY HEALTHY and beneficial.
From the scientific perspective, the proper conclusions arise from two facts:
1) Our bodies have EVOLVED to be able to achieve "satisfactory performance" using naturally occurring substances.
2) Plants have NOT EVOLVED to be beneficial to things that eat them (excepting specific symbiotic situations).
Regarding MDMA and similar things: Such drugs are "designed" in only the most RUDIMENTARY manner. A suggestive molecular framework is "fiddled with," and the new molecule tested for its effects. The result is in no way guaranteed to be BETTER for humans or WORSE for humans than a similar naturally occurring molecule. It could go either way--it's just a tossup.
1) A LONG history of human testing. Like ayahuasca and mescaline. It's true that medical studies can miss things that perhaps a culture, using these substances over generations, might not miss (it CAN go in the reverse though, too). The ideal testing would be multi-generational tests run in a scientific/medical manner. Such tests have not been made on ANY substance I'm aware of.
2) Mistakes in manufacture. About 20 years ago tryptophan was taken off the market because (presumably) an Asian manufacturer screwed up their process, and the stuff they were selling made people sick. Plants generally don't make "mistakes" in their biosynthesis (but a mutation COULD end up changing the synthesis).
3) Contaminants. Plants are less likely to include "industrial type" contaminants--although they CAN. Some plants can pick up poisonous heavy metals from the ground, which people wouldn't want to be eating.
Overall, the "natural vs manmade" argument is WAY over played.
1) There are MANY poisons in many plants. Often evolved, as burnt has said, as a defense mechanism by the plant to protect it from being eaten.
2) There are MANY unknowns in plants. ALL plants are a complex soup of molecules.
3) The natural vs manmade argument in some respects is an historical (and thus somewhat outdated one): Limited understanding of food/drugs/health allowed for mistaken assumptions about food-processing and man-made medicines. Although our knowledge today is not PERFECT by any means, most of the fundamental MISUNDERSTANDINGS about biochemistry and metabolism are things of the past.
Certainly, one thing that's annoying and frustrating about "nature" people is that they would not admit that it is at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE for a totally man-made/designed substance to be PERFECTLY HEALTHY and beneficial.
From the scientific perspective, the proper conclusions arise from two facts:
1) Our bodies have EVOLVED to be able to achieve "satisfactory performance" using naturally occurring substances.
2) Plants have NOT EVOLVED to be beneficial to things that eat them (excepting specific symbiotic situations).
Regarding MDMA and similar things: Such drugs are "designed" in only the most RUDIMENTARY manner. A suggestive molecular framework is "fiddled with," and the new molecule tested for its effects. The result is in no way guaranteed to be BETTER for humans or WORSE for humans than a similar naturally occurring molecule. It could go either way--it's just a tossup.
Well-put, SWIMfriend!
As far as I know, there's absolutely no scientific evidence to back up purpose-driven evolution, in general. Evolution is currently thought to be the outcome of random mutation of traits and the survivability of those traits. Certain cacti began producing mescaline at random, and somehow either it didn't cause them to be less prone to reproduction or possibly boosted their ability to reproduce. A number of factors can play into this, whether it's less palatable to species that would otherwise obliterate the cactus's population, whether it's a desirable resource for species willing and able to cultivate such a cactus, or whether the molecule acts as a hormone or an intermediate between hormones. Sometimes these molecules can have negative repercussions on the survivability of a species, as 69ron points out. We haven't adapted our culture to be able to adequately cultivate peyote, though its compounds remain desirable to us, so it's dying out.
Absolutely.
69ron said:
As far as I know, there's absolutely no scientific evidence to back up purpose-driven evolution, in general. Evolution is currently thought to be the outcome of random mutation of traits and the survivability of those traits. Certain cacti began producing mescaline at random, and somehow either it didn't cause them to be less prone to reproduction or possibly boosted their ability to reproduce. A number of factors can play into this, whether it's less palatable to species that would otherwise obliterate the cactus's population, whether it's a desirable resource for species willing and able to cultivate such a cactus, or whether the molecule acts as a hormone or an intermediate between hormones. Sometimes these molecules can have negative repercussions on the survivability of a species, as 69ron points out. We haven't adapted our culture to be able to adequately cultivate peyote, though its compounds remain desirable to us, so it's dying out.
MalargueZiggy said:
Absolutely.
A short video on the project to save ALL PLANT SPECIES, by storing their seeds...that some on this thread would probably enjoy.
I've been looking for this thread forever!
Basically now I believe that natural drugs are better only because their long history of human usage gives us an idea of their effects and dangers, we just don't have that with synthetic psychoactives.
Basically now I believe that natural drugs are better only because their long history of human usage gives us an idea of their effects and dangers, we just don't have that with synthetic psychoactives.
Just because a plant has been used by humans for a long time does not mean its safe. Many plants that are used for long time are not safe and can kill you. Furthermore it does not necessarily mean they are effective either.
Furthermore much historical data is vauge and innacurate. Even the methodology of shamans can be highly questionable and even dangerous. When I saw a shaman he forced me to snort tobacco which sucked and make me really sick and is very toxic.
Many botanical substances have never undergone rigirous clinical studies. Many synthetic substances on the drug market have (well mostly all have or they wouldn't be on the market).
Certain plant substances and combinations can have serious consequences on the liver. Some can acutely kill.
Your argument doesn't hold water. Perhaps it does if we are comparing mescaline psilocybin versus MDMA and amphetamine then yes you are right. But if we look at all drugs across all families of plants chemical classifications your argument is completely untrue.
No being used for a long time does NOT mean they are safe, what it means is that we have a really good idea as to weather it's safe or not. For example- Datura is a plant which has a long history of human usage, but it's long history shows that it is not safe.
Shamans are crazy, that is why they are shamans. My mission is to distill shamanic knowledge.
My argument is simple. Plants have long histories of human usage which show them to be safe or not safe, synthetic or extracted psychoactives do not have this advantage.
[quote='Coatl]
No being used for a long time does NOT mean they are safe, what it means is that we have a really good idea as to weather it's safe or not. For example- Datura is a plant which has a long history of human usage, but it's long history shows that it is not safe.
Shamans are crazy, that is why they are shamans. My mission is to distill shamanic knowledge.
My argument is simple. Plants have long histories of human usage which show them to be safe or not safe, synthetic or extracted psychoactives do not have this advantage.
[/quote]
I agree with this 100%.
Herbs have been around for as long as people have. We have a far greater knowledge of their long lasting effects. For example, Kava has been used for a very long time. We can see from the populations that use it that it clearly doesn’t cause any serious harm like birth defects because the cultures who use it are thriving. There are a few reports of liver toxicity, which are based on using other things with Kava. Actually there are far more reports of liver damage from alcohol but no one seems to care about that.
Another example is cocaine. Coca has been used for a very long time, and it is very well known for being addictive. The coca tree in some areas of the world said to have a female spirit who makes you fall in love with her until you die. This mythology very well captures its habit forming quality.
The opium poppy is known worldwide as a very additive plant. We have hundreds of years of data to prove this. Then one day heroine is invented from an extract of it. Shortly after heroine was invented, it was marketed as a non-addicting cough medicine! This is a good example of why synthetic drugs can be VERY DANGEROUS. Little is known about them until many years pass. Now we know that heroine is one of the most addictive drugs there is, far more addictive than opium poppies are.
MDMA, another synthetic drug, has shown to be neurotoxic in heavy users. It was once thought to be a safe psychedelic. I’ve known a few MDMA addicts who were using it heavily every day for many years and they definitely show signs of emotion problems that they didn’t have prior to using it. If MDMA was a natural drug used for thousands of years, these sort of things would likely have been known long ago.
Marijuana, is another example of a natural drug with a long history of use. We know of societies that have used it for hundreds of years. They are not dropping like flies, so we know it’s not very toxic. They are not showing signs of birth defects or other such problems, so we know it doesn’t have any serious side effects.
Jimson weed has a long history of use and is very well known to cause fatalities. Millions of people have died from accidental overdoses of it.
There are some natural herbs that are not in use. For example, HBWR seeds have no real history of use. Ololiuqui does though. For this reason, HBWR is more of a health risk. There is no place in the world where HBWR has been used ritually for hundreds of years, so we don’t know if long term use of it is damaging or not. Ololiuqui seems to be relatively safe. Natives that have used ololiuqui for hundreds of years appear healthy, and there are no stories of it’s toxicity, or any mythologies about it being dangerous.
No being used for a long time does NOT mean they are safe, what it means is that we have a really good idea as to weather it's safe or not. For example- Datura is a plant which has a long history of human usage, but it's long history shows that it is not safe.
Shamans are crazy, that is why they are shamans. My mission is to distill shamanic knowledge.
My argument is simple. Plants have long histories of human usage which show them to be safe or not safe, synthetic or extracted psychoactives do not have this advantage.
[/quote]
I agree with this 100%.
Herbs have been around for as long as people have. We have a far greater knowledge of their long lasting effects. For example, Kava has been used for a very long time. We can see from the populations that use it that it clearly doesn’t cause any serious harm like birth defects because the cultures who use it are thriving. There are a few reports of liver toxicity, which are based on using other things with Kava. Actually there are far more reports of liver damage from alcohol but no one seems to care about that.
Another example is cocaine. Coca has been used for a very long time, and it is very well known for being addictive. The coca tree in some areas of the world said to have a female spirit who makes you fall in love with her until you die. This mythology very well captures its habit forming quality.
The opium poppy is known worldwide as a very additive plant. We have hundreds of years of data to prove this. Then one day heroine is invented from an extract of it. Shortly after heroine was invented, it was marketed as a non-addicting cough medicine! This is a good example of why synthetic drugs can be VERY DANGEROUS. Little is known about them until many years pass. Now we know that heroine is one of the most addictive drugs there is, far more addictive than opium poppies are.
MDMA, another synthetic drug, has shown to be neurotoxic in heavy users. It was once thought to be a safe psychedelic. I’ve known a few MDMA addicts who were using it heavily every day for many years and they definitely show signs of emotion problems that they didn’t have prior to using it. If MDMA was a natural drug used for thousands of years, these sort of things would likely have been known long ago.
Marijuana, is another example of a natural drug with a long history of use. We know of societies that have used it for hundreds of years. They are not dropping like flies, so we know it’s not very toxic. They are not showing signs of birth defects or other such problems, so we know it doesn’t have any serious side effects.
Jimson weed has a long history of use and is very well known to cause fatalities. Millions of people have died from accidental overdoses of it.
There are some natural herbs that are not in use. For example, HBWR seeds have no real history of use. Ololiuqui does though. For this reason, HBWR is more of a health risk. There is no place in the world where HBWR has been used ritually for hundreds of years, so we don’t know if long term use of it is damaging or not. Ololiuqui seems to be relatively safe. Natives that have used ololiuqui for hundreds of years appear healthy, and there are no stories of it’s toxicity, or any mythologies about it being dangerous.
Your both completely ignoring the hundreds of cases where a synthetic or pure drug far outperforms plant based drugs in regards to safety and efficacy.
I'll use a simple example. Cardiac glycosides. Using fox glove for delivering cardiac glycosides in a safe and effective dose is very dangerous because the concentrations can and do vary. But as a pure compound it can be done easily.
In the case of local anesthetics novacaine is safer and more specific for the purpose then cocaine.
There are lots of examples of synthetic drugs that work better or are safer then the natural drugs whose idea they came from.
Again you guys argument might apply when comparing kava kava with alcohol or MDMA with mescaline but just because something is natural does not mean its better or safer then a synthetic drug for a specified purpose.
The only way you can compare one drug with another is by directly comparing them for the specified purpose or in terms of their safety profile.
You bias is based in ignorance. Both of you.
I'll use a simple example. Cardiac glycosides. Using fox glove for delivering cardiac glycosides in a safe and effective dose is very dangerous because the concentrations can and do vary. But as a pure compound it can be done easily.
In the case of local anesthetics novacaine is safer and more specific for the purpose then cocaine.
There are lots of examples of synthetic drugs that work better or are safer then the natural drugs whose idea they came from.
Again you guys argument might apply when comparing kava kava with alcohol or MDMA with mescaline but just because something is natural does not mean its better or safer then a synthetic drug for a specified purpose.
The only way you can compare one drug with another is by directly comparing them for the specified purpose or in terms of their safety profile.
You bias is based in ignorance. Both of you.
I have to say about the history of plant usage and that it somehow denotes more safety.... I agree that history tells you something about a substance, but I would say that all it really says is that you can still have babies eating those plants... don't forget life expectancy has been increasing exponentially and it used to be very low, I mean who's to say a big part of that wasn't because people were ruining their hearts, kidneys, livers, etc.. you name it... don't get me wrong, I choose plants over synthetics and I try to stick to nature as much as possible for the history of use, relatively safety etc., but effects of abuse and/or long term subtle effects are very unpredictable. It's like this cactus debate recently, I've had no serious problems from cactus but yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if I did a number on either my heart or kidneys one time because that's what it felt like.... of course we're all talking about relative safety here. When I think about the natural vs synthetic debate I just try to remember we're dealing with physical molecules and it's all a matter of understanding how they work.
Your picking random examples of synthetic drugs that have some issue with their safety. I can pick random examples of plant based drugs that have problems too.
This argument isn't appropriate unless we compare drugs for specific purposes with one another in terms of safety and effectiveness.
Otherwise we can both just pick random examples and use them to back up our arguments.
I don't mean to say you are an ignorant person but if your argument is only based on the examples that you happen to know about then your bias is based in the ignorance of the hundreds of examples of where synthetic or pure compounds work better then natural plant based counterparts.
If we are comparing mescaline to MDMA or coffee to amphetamine then yes I agree with you. But the kinds of drugs we are talking about represents a tiny fraction of whats out there.
This argument isn't appropriate unless we compare drugs for specific purposes with one another in terms of safety and effectiveness.
Otherwise we can both just pick random examples and use them to back up our arguments.
I don't mean to say you are an ignorant person but if your argument is only based on the examples that you happen to know about then your bias is based in the ignorance of the hundreds of examples of where synthetic or pure compounds work better then natural plant based counterparts.
If we are comparing mescaline to MDMA or coffee to amphetamine then yes I agree with you. But the kinds of drugs we are talking about represents a tiny fraction of whats out there.
Similar threads
- Sticky
