Synthetic cannabinoids are a structurally diverse group of compounds that act as cannabinoid receptor agonists. Some of these compounds produce intoxicating effects similar to those of the phytocannabinoids found in plants of the genus Cannabis, while others produce varying levels of euphoria, intoxication and analgesia. Despite their functional homology, many research chemicals of this class bear little structural resemblence to naturally occurring cannabinoids. Synthetic cannabinoids are typically active in the very low milligram range and either smoked (alone or as part of a smoking blend mixture) or taken orally. Given the potency of these compounds, use of appropriate weighing apparatus is essential to minimize the risk of overdose.
Please help to expand our understanding of this class of psychoactive substances by contributing to the threads highlighted below, and recognizing posters that have made useful contributions by awarding positive reputation.
* Note: SR-18 is a colloquial term for this compound and does not appear in any patent documentation or peer reviewed scientific literature. This compound is a close homologue of the better characterized compound JWH-250.
JWH-122 is mentioned in "The Cannabinoid Receptors", by Patricia H. Reggio- noted as having a very high affinity (Ki of 0.69 +/- 0.05 nM) for the CB1 receptor. This is the only place in which this compound appears outside of the Huffman papers.
SWIM tried to use the search engine and Google, but did anyone found an experience report with JWH 122 or JWH 210? The substances are getting available through several vendors, so SWIM is concerned about the high affinity, which would indicate the dosage is extremly low and the risk of overdosages are extremly high. Also no information could be found on duration and else.
The index at the top of this thread has now been updated to include discussion of cannabinoids that has occurred since the last update 12 months ago. Please contribute to the highlighted threads and also help to keep this index up-to-date by highlighting new drug information and experience threads as they arise.
Re: Research Chemicals Index - Synthetic Cannabinoids
Simply put no. Analogue law is deliberately vague and therefore left open for interpretation by the courts. There is no definitive mapping of 'X is legally considered analogous to Y' because of this ambiguity. The definition of analogue will also vary by jurisdiction (if a definition is even offered at all). If a compound shows cannabinoid receptor activity and has recreational psychoactive effects then a case for analogy in the broadest sense could always be made.
Re: Research Chemicals Index - Synthetic Cannabinoids
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenoxide
Simply put no. Analogue law is deliberately vague and therefore left open for interpretation by the courts. There is no definitive mapping of 'X is legally considered analogous to Y' because of this ambiguity. The definition of analogue will also vary by jurisdiction (if a definition is even offered at all). If a compound shows cannabinoid receptor activity and has recreational psychoactive effects then a case for analogy in the broadest sense could always be made.
most of the cases I have been following are using the analog law for substances with "structural similarity".
if the government paid PHD's can look at them and determine that from their molecular shape I'm sure people in the private sector have the ability too.
Re: Research Chemicals Index - Synthetic Cannabinoids
You don't seem to comprehend what I am saying. "Structural similarity" is a not a well defined chemical term. It is not a magical definition that all chemists immediately reach a consensus upon. I could draw up a far from complete list of what I consider to be structural analogues (both known and theoretical) of substance X, but my list wouldn't necessarily match those of other chemists, and more importantly it may not match the interpretation of the courts. Such a list would therefore create false assurances over the legal status. It's open to interpretation and the courts have the final say on the matter. There is no "right" answer.
If there was a definitive answer to what you're asking for then analogue law would be without purpose. It exists is to create this ambiguity and thereby gives the courts some flexibility to prosecute where they know an individual is skirting the law (and let's face it, they know the "designer drug" trade isn't legitimate) but would otherwise get by on a technicality. The reach of analogue law only becomes clear when it is tested in the courtroom. Anything before that stage would be speculation.
Let's not forget that the courts are also mindful of intent. In the context of an unregulated, untested chemical being obviously sold for human consumption (no matter how it is packaged), the courts are likely to side with the prosecution if they have even a weak case for analogy. Such a case could be easily created for most of the cannabinoids being analogous to something on the controlled substances list of the state or federal government.
Re: Research Chemicals Index - Synthetic Cannabinoids
So are blend producers just playing roulette with the cops. Have talked to several shops in Texas and have a intrested group, but concerned with the laws. Seems the analog act is a catch all.
Re: Research Chemicals Index - Synthetic Cannabinoids
I'v gone about to create a new table, containing 32 additional cannabinoids which at the time of the original post had either not yet been marketed or synthesized. The table below contains all of the cannabinoids mentioned in the original post, with some of the links being updated.
