How to make DMT from Tryptophan?

Legally (state/federally) per the RFRA of course.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal
oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1084
scotusblog.com/
washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/
law.cornell.edu/
erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/tryptamine2dmt.html
well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/?_r=0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

extract from an acacia tree or another DMT rich plant

Tryptophan is probably way cheaper than purchasing roots.

but overall extraction of DMT might be cheaper than semi-synthesis

>Legally (state/federally)
IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer):
Mere possession w/o DEA permit might be illegal.
Manufacture for human consumption w/o the same might be as well.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._O_Centro_Espirita_Beneficente_Uniao_do_Vegetal

Why would I cite a law stating it's legal and it not be?

The same could be said for marijuana and other soft drugs.

>Gonzales v. blah blah

But you'd have to convince the DA or a jury that your possession/use was w/in the religious exemption.

>every church in the US having to get a permit / convince the DA that they're actually religious
There is no "is this drug religiously exempt" except that it's no danger to society (not an explosive lab, e.g.). DMT already has a supreme court precedent, and that's the drug of topic.

Marijuana is a plant, supported by the Bible of Christianity, and scientific backing for not only harmlessness (no negative respiratory effects through "7 joint years", even), but also helpfulness (norml / cannabis and the brain, a user's guide for some examples).

why do the state make every interesting drug illegal

instead they force crap like alcohol, tobacco and caffeine on us

what's the rationale behind poisoning the workforce

With this, they don't. It's simple enough checking state laws for medical or an RFRA.

>why?
Because they believe they have a congressional right to where they actually don't.

See Article I, Section 8 for a list of the powers of Congress, with Amendment 14 as an example of what to do without a power being listed.

They seem to claim the Necessary and Proper Clause for having this right, but that clause actually is meant to only enforce their listed powers. Nothing about outlawing all those drugs is necessary, so the federal substance laws are unconstitutional.

>There is no "is this drug religiously exempt" except that it's no danger to society (not an explosive lab, e.g.). DMT already has a supreme court precedent, and that's the drug of topic.

Great, go to the local PD or Sheriff's Office with the DMT you've extracted from plants, tell them you have every intention of getting high off of it as well as selling it for others to do the same, and that there is no religious aspect to those actions.

Surely the DA will decline to prosecute!
No jury would convict!
Even if they did, it would be overturned on appeal!
SCOTUS has your back oyez, oyez, oyez!

Why would I do that? I have every claim to legality if something happens, but there's no reason to be ludicrous.

>Why would I do that?
Oh, you wouldn't, that's the point.

You've obviously arguing in bad faith, b/c the case invoked here deals with religious exemption.

Get fucked.

Except, the reason is yet unlisted why I wouldn't.

I have a life.

Actually, there's legitimately no sound logic to do that except to make it news, which could be done without taking myself to court.

>Except, the reason is yet unlisted why I wouldn't.

Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

top lel

Irony. It's vague enough that it's probably a challenge figuring out why.

there's no irony, there's nothing to figure out,
the matter at hand is religious exemption
oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1084

and retarded shitposters, that never changes

Yes, and all religious exemption would be the same.

The gov't. has no compelling interest in my drug habits.

Nice url btw

>all religious exemption would be the same.
we're right back here >>you'd need to show that the use was religious in nature,
if you can do that, then what's the point of the last hour of posting? nothing
you can't b/c 'sperg in his basement' isn't 'UDV'

>The gov't. has no compelling interest in my drug habits.
hilarious, cocaine is available at 7-11, right?
you're not very good at this

>oyez.org/cases/2005/04-1084
hey faggot: I'm cashing out
if you like that

scotusblog.com/
washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/
law.cornell.edu/

I liked Volokh's blog a bit better before it became part of the Post - or at least I read it more.
'conspiracy' is tongue in cheek on this one

>why are you responding
Because it's my thread? Because this is interesting?

I have no doubt that a case with any semblance of integrity would be fine. I've already stated harmlessness and religious context. What else is there to be on about?

How about the topic?

free bump

Why would you ask here instead of going to Erowid?

>inhaling burned hydrocarbons
>from an oil rich plant
>no negative respiratory effects

Simply impossible.

erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/tryptamine2dmt.html

well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/marijuana-smoking-does-not-harm-lungs-study-finds/?_r=0

>tetralin, acetone, formaldehyde, MeOH, NaCNBH3
What the fug.

>blogs
>new york times
Good stuff

>"and more than half smoked marijuana, cigarettes or both."
>"10 joint-years of exposure or more, lung function did begin to decline"

>joint-year is 365 joints or filled bowls (taken from the study)
>typical pipe fits half a gram, maybe
>chronic users smoke 2 grams a day at the very least
And take that from me, as a former weed dealer.

Finally,
>Conclusion: Occasional and low cumulative marijuana use was not associated with adverse effects on pulmonary function.
>Occasional and low
Chronic chronic users are neither occasional or low.

Again, I repeat, consistent use of inhaling burning plant matter is hazardous to pulmonary health no matter the source.
THC may alleviate some of the damage but overall you're still sucking down 100C+ rich hydrocarbon material into your airways.

>vaporizers

Firstly decarboxylate tryptophan.

gl, faggot

So, bake it?

Show me a study of vaporizing marijuana instead of a joint use or equivalent and I can agree with your first claim.

...

>my case study
Dank weed causes no issues I've observed and even clears out the lungs in regards to tobacco smoke. It's a vasodialator.

>I've observed
Fantastic! Proofs?

Smoke more weed, faggot. I don't give a fuck.

Got generations of people smoking weed and no observable negative implications. I don't care.

How about you explain to OP that he should fucking die or learn about chemistry.

>Wahh wahh I make a claim I can't back up with evidence
>Pfff lol 420BLAZEIT smoke more weed GAYBOI!

Really, truly, a convincing argument you have, nigger lover.

If you weren't a social recluse and smoked more weed you'd understand.

What part of
>former drug dealer
do you not understand?

The psychedelic experience is a doorway which leads to a hallway which leads to only what you want to find within yourself.

In other terms, a drug is nothing but a high-yield (fast but not perfect) technique to reach partly what your reason and heart cannot achieve fully in your opinion. If anything, it is a total lack of confidence in your reason and in your abilities to philosophy to be at ease with life; ease which remains unlikely, given that the choice of doing these drugs with the goal of opening your awareness and opening your mind is already a sign of close-mindedness and poor ability to reflect.

I forgot about that.

Or people use them because they're fucking insane and open new avenues of understanding in each individual about the human mind.

That said I only had one experience where I was re-wired and the rest were amazing but not necessary.