the great natural vs. synthetic debate

i know this has been beat to death, but i have a new (to me) piece of evidence.

i have always thought that the view that natural is better than synthetic was stupid. it just didn't make sense that a synthesized chemical was inherently "not as good" as the same chemical made naturally. well i was watching The Union: The Business Behind Getting High, and they were talking about Marinol - synthetic THC. some guy said "sure...they can synthesize the same 21 carbon compound, with all the atoms connected correctly," BUT we have no idea what chemical spins we are giving the electrons, or the organization of quarks and other sub-atomic particles. it's very unlikely that our chemical catalysis does it in the same manner as a plant's enzyme does. enzymes are ALWAYS thousands of times more efficient than chemical catalysis.
so even though you are making the same chemical covalent bonds, and essentially the same chemical, it's not REALLY the same.

this is a very valid argument to maybe prefer natural THC or psilocin over Marinol or synthetic 4-ho-dmt. of course there are several other chemicals in the natural products, but that is a different debate.

what this guy said kinda blew my mind, and it's all i was thinking about, when it was far from his main point.

if anyone else likes biochemistry, speak up

 

I don't know much about biochemistry at all but that is interesting. My argument against that would be an example like eating LSD vs. Eating ergot. Ergot can make someone deathly Illl while LSD is far better for you. So while we may not be able to replicate the safety of some compounds in their natural state others become far more safe via synthesis.

 

my uncle recieved marinol when he had colon cancer and he said they arent what you would think of them... ive read on different sites that for some reason if you take them for extended periods of time they can also make you go crazy in some shape or form

 

that's not really relevant to my point. i mentioned that natural things contain other chemicals, and in the case of ergot it contains some nasty shit (and i don't believe any actual LSD). so for your argument, there would have to be a natural version of LSD.

don't get me wrong, i think LSD is pretty damn safe and harmless

 

How can one say they prefer natural THC or psilocin to synthetic versions if the natural chemicals aren't isolated? I think it's all the same debate, because how can you argue a natural substance is better when really you're saying you prefer the combination of naturally occurring compounds over a single substance?

 

i'm not saying i prefer it for that reason though. i prefer it because i guess i have some slight spiritual sense, that trusts biochemical evolution over some guy in a lab. the natural enzyme will make "substance x" with certain electron spin configurations, and the quakes and quasars? (sub-atomic particles) with some organization or structure. when we re-create the chemical in a lab, we get the atoms right on the molecular scale and the atomic scale (that is all the atoms, covalently bonded to each other in the right way) but not on the sub-atomic scale (electron spin, etc)

when we do it in lab, it's sloppy. it's sloppy in vivo too, i guess. but i really think an enzyme does it better.

and these are all just new thoughts to me. i don't completely abandon my old way of thinking that synthetic does not equal bad, nor natural = good

 

It feels to me like an argument that frozen sperm do not produce fundamentally
viable offspring because the seeds are not "fresh".

 

meaning, an invalid argument?

really though, that's two completely different things. single cells have long been known to be frozen and remain alive and functional after thawing. and "seeds" are some of the most robust things in biology.

i'm not saying i buy into this 100%. it just touches on some of the unknown. we don't really know the fine details of the molecules that are being made. in either case - synthetically or naturally. it's just something to think about. i'm just trying to keep an open mind.

 

who cares it all gets us stoned

 

I'd trust 4-ho-dmt over shrooms off a person on the street that I didn't know.
Then you're putting your shit in the hands of some dude over a chemist...
On the sub atomic scale there's really no telling how many differences there are between two different cannabis strains. Or even two different batches of the same strain of shrooms.
If you grow your own you don't know what contaminants may get in etc.
I think debate over natural vs. synthetic is stupid, and the natural side always seems to be someone who for some less than solid reason seems to think that natural is always safer/better.
This isn't really directed at you porkstock, it's more of a general statement on the "debate".

 

yea i agree with all of what you're saying, i was just trying to bring something NEW to the debate.

wait, i don't agree with one thing
different strains of weed, and shrooms are still genetically related, and the enzyme(s) that creates the THC or psilocin are conserved, meaning they do not vary much at all from species to species, let alone from different individuals of the same species. sure there are different levels of the chemical, but that is all due to gene regulation/mRNA and protein levels, not the structure and activity of the enzyme, that is the same from strain to strain
so every strain of marijuana has the same enzyme making THC, no matter how much THC it's making. so they all have some certain electron spin. when we create it in the lab, the electron spin is "sloppily thrown together" (and this is where my expertise is totally lacking) and hypothetically this could lead to less stable or higher energy compounds.. that emit electrons more readily? or more reactive? are more dangerous?
on the other hand it's also possible that the natural ones are the more dangerous.

 

Do we even know all the factors on a sub-atomic level?

 

Naturally, it's all fucked up.

 

I think my response is relevant to your post perhaps not the best example. Examples like 5 meo dmt from bufo alvaris might be better. Bufo alvaris has been reported to cause seizure as well as things like irregular heartbeat. Even mushrooms occasionally cause seizures in some individuals. So I think there is still some examples where synthetic may be preferred or at least equally as safe. smitty pretty much touched on all the other points.

after rereading the op im not really clear if we are talking about natural vs. Synthetic or pure isolated compounds vs. Constructed compounds?

 

Drugs are to unpredictable to have a verdict on a question like this. It's really a matter of preference for the high, because the more you're enjoying it, the less likely your body is to trick itself into a panick attack, seizure, or acoma.

 

^ that's not necessarily true. In fact today some guy made a post about his friend taking a mix of methylone and butylone and said it was better than any MDMA ever tried but he ended up in the hospital due to a seriously elevated heartrate and blue limbs I think he said. I can't even fathom how many times ive felt great on alcohol only to be over the toilet by the end of the night.

Then there is something like salvia which is not pleasant for many but few serious physical consequences have occurred from it.

I think it really depends on the chemical.

 

i'm pretty sure we don't. that's kinda my point.

i guess that's a better way to put it. i'm comparing pure but natural THC, 4hodmt, or 5meodmt to synthetic THC, 4hodmt or 5meodmt.

 

In respect for the open mind, are induced states of consciousness less conscious or not real consciousness?

 

I see some problems with the reasoning of the quote in OP. First, the efficiency of enzymes says nothing about the quality of the final compound, only the speed in which it is generated. Second, are things like electron-spin and valency and all that relevant at the biochemical level? There is a loss of relevancy as your magnification changes; if it doesn't matter what color a bridge is when asking whether it is safe, then does it matter how the electrons spin if it causes the same synaptic event?

 

Mr.Writer beat me to it, but these were my initial thoughts after reading the OP. If the same synaptic event occurs, then is electron-spin relevant? I don't know much about chemistry to really participate in the debate, just my initial thoughts. Interesting topic though.