• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

Rational Cannabinoid Design: From Intoxicant to Chemical Weapon

The unfree market has already created and tested numerous delivery methods if you mean delivery of the product into users' hands.

Now if you mean delivery of the molecules into the users' bodies, there are only five safe methods to do so with Fluorinated / Halogenated cannabinoids:

1. Oral ingestion: Cold Process
2. Transdermal [DMSO]: Cold Process
3. Rectal: Cold Process
4. Injection (safety depends on formulation and injection technique): Cold Process
5. Ultrasonic Nebulization (includes ultrasonic e-cigs) => Inhalation: Cold Process


The toxic delivery methods when using Fluorinated cannabinoids:

1. Smoking
2. Thermal Vaporization: All Fluorinated cannabinoids on the market today break down into toxic products below their boiling points.


2.1 Virtually all e-cig devices: These use heat so also produce Fluorotoxins when loaded with these drugs; this does not include ultrasonic e-cig devices which are nebulizers and are classed in item #5 above.
2.2 Vaporizers (excluding ultrasonic models)
2.3 Crack-Pipes


3. Soldering Irons aka. Herb Irons
4. Magnifying Glass & Sunlight



These Fluorinated cannabinoids have high boiling points over 500°C and their thermochemical decomposition temperatures are all below their boiling points.

This is also true of most non-Halogenated cannabinoids but they don't cause Halotoxicity / Fluorotoxicity upon heating as the Halogenated cannabinoids do.
 
Hi again Isochromium,

The toxic delivery methods when using Fluorinated cannabinoids:

1. Smoking
2. Thermal Vaporization: All Fluorinated cannabinoids on the market today break down into toxic products below their boiling points.


2.1 Virtually all e-cig devices: These use heat so also produce Fluorotoxins when loaded with these drugs; this does not include ultrasonic e-cig devices which are nebulizers and are classed in item #5 above.
2.2 Vaporizers (excluding ultrasonic models)
2.3 Crack-Pipes


3. Soldering Irons aka. Herb Irons
4. Magnifying Glass & Sunlight


Can you please help me classify this particular consumption method described with pictures as shown below?


ipr5ah.jpg


Then similarily related statements (collected using Google), for example:

Safe High Temperature Steam

« ...at a safe standard atmospheric pressure (room pressure). ... ...provides for a much safer high temperature steam solution. »​


High Temperature, High Energy Equals High Productivity

« Superheated steam carries more enthalpy, or total energy, than air at the same temperature and pressure. ... This gives superheated steam a much larger capability... »​


Principle of superheated steam at atmospheric pressure

« ...superheated steam has a high heat capacity and thermal conductivity. Due to its low viscosity, fast penetration into the material is facilitated. »​


IMO my clean-burning VG butane-operated vaporizer pipe offers a nice feature i tagged as "potentialized" release/transport agent, or simply put: Superheated Steam @ Atmospheric Pressure. Or if you prefer, this:


...or this:


...differs quite significantly from that:

xybmg.jpg
s2w4uh.jpg

One makes me happy, the other... miserable.

So, i guess this is an invitation to express views from a different perspective! :)

Good day, have fun!! =D
 
Toxic Thermopyrolytic Byproducts

This is not a matter of perspective just basic chemistry.

The natural cannabinoids THC and CBD do not contain Halogen atoms such as Fluorine and have very low boiling points that are below their decomposition temperatures:

Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)
Boiling point:
157°C / 314.6 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Euphoriant, Analgesic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antiemetic

cannabidiol (CBD)
Boiling point:
160-180°C / 320-356 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Anxiolytic, Analgesic, Antipsychotic, Antiinflammatory, Antioxidant, Antispasmodic

Cannabinol (CBN)
Boiling point:
185°C / 365 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Oxidation, breakdown, product, Sedative, Antibiotic

cannabichromene (CBC)
Boiling point:
220°C / 428 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Antiinflammatory, Antibiotic, Antifungal

Δ-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ-8-THC)
Boiling point:
175-178°C / 347-352.4 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Resembles Δ-9-THC, Less psychoactive, More stable Antiemetic

tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV)
Boiling point:
< 220°C / <428 degree Fahrenheit
Properties: Analgesic, Euphoriant


The small size (low atom-count) of these natural Cannabinoid molecules allows the user to boil them into vapor below the temperature at which their bond-structures change into distorted/toxic byproducts due to heat. Further, the natural Cannabinoids don't have any Halogen atoms in them, nor any Nitrogen atoms. These atoms don't burn clean: they burn DIRTY.

1. The Nitrogen atoms in synthetic Cannabinoids burn into Nitric Acid which is toxic & corrosive to the lungs. When the body neutralizes this Nitric Acid into Nitrate and Nitrate salts, it is creating Carcinogens. The Nitrites / Nitrates are known carcinogens.

2. The Fluorine atom in Fluorinated Cannabinoids burns into Hydrofluoric Acid which is super-corrosive & toxic to lungs & all other body tissues. Worse, the weird Frankenstein gimped-up molecules produced by heating Fluorinated Cannabinoids are also very toxic and include: PFIB (PerFluoroIsoButene), Fluorophosgene and hundreds more just as bad & worse.

3. The Chlorine atom in CL-2201 burns into Hydrochloric Acid which is OK in our stomachs but burns & kills the lining of our lungs. It also forms OrganoChlorine molecules that are toxic, carcinogenic, fat-soluble and bio-accumulative like PCBs (PolyChlorinatedBiphenyls)

4. The Sulfur atom in ADSB-FUB-187 burns into Sulfuric Acid which is a super-corrosive toxic mineral acid that destroys lung tissue.

ADSB-FUB-187 is the worst pyrotoxic synthetic Cannabinoid on the market. Each molecule contains:

1 x Chlorine Atom
5 x Nitrogen Atoms
1 x Fluorine Atom
1 x Sulfur Atom


Synthetic cannabinoids are much larger, heavier molecules than natural THC, CBD or any of the others found in Cannabis plants.

Their boiling points are far more than double those of natural Cannabinoids and well-above their thermal decomposition temperatures.

This means that instead of cleanly boiling into vapor, these heavy synthetic Cannabinoid molecules burn into toxic byproducts far below the temperatures at which they boil.

There's no way around this using any method which involves heating to vaporize these synthetic Cannabinoids.

That's not so bad when it's the non-Halogenated synthetic cannabinoids but the Halogenated ones (usually Fluorinated) are the majority for sale today and decompose into very toxic byproducts.

Non-Fluorinated Synthetic Cannabinoids:

AB-CHMINACA: BP = 477.52°C
THJ-018: Predicted BP = 529.1°C


Fluorinated Synthetic Cannabinoids:

5F-AKB48: BP = 568.3°C
5F-AMB: BP = 589.5°C
5F-UR-144 (XLR-11): BP = 426.606°C
AM-2201: BP = 551.083°C
FUB-PB22: BP = 534.2°C
MAM-2201: BP = 574.3°C
THJ-2201: Predicted BP = 551.083°C

 
Last edited:
Hi again Isochromium,

This is not a matter of perspective...

Considered from my perspective it was interresting having a civilized exchange though the matter is over for me now, never mind!...

Good day, have fun!! =D
 
roi: The Wikipedia page to which you refer was first created on July 13, 2015:


The post to which you refer was created by myself on July 3, 2015.

How could I have referred to the Wikipedia page you linked when it did not exist until ten days after I made the post itself?

That post was - as a Bluelighter yourself should know - locked to new edits within hours of creation.

Furthermore, the first version of that very Wikipedia page, created on July 13th, 2015:


Reads as follows:

"MDMB-FUBINACA (also known as MDMB(N)-Bz-F, MDMB-Bz-F and FUB-MDMB) is an indazole-based synthetic cannabinoid that is a potent agonist of the CB1 receptor and has been sold online as a designer drug.[1]"

Ten days after the post I made on this thread Wikipedia's own very first page on it identified the molecule's name as I did.

At the time there were three common names assigned to that molecule and even today all three are in use on various websites.

Only later did the preferred name become more solidified in common usage: MDMB-FUBINACA.

At the time of my post the naming convention for the particular Cannabinoid to which you refer was still quite arbitrary and differed between many sites. It still does.

Naturally, you're subscribed to the thread that you created: New cannabinoid, ADAMANTYL-THPINACA and received notification of my latest post made tonight.

You just read that last post on the thread made less than an hour ago titled "ADAMANTYL-THPINACA: Analysis I"

Rather than reply to it on that thread or this one you made a comment on this thread about the arbitrary naming of these recent new Cannabinoids that has already been spoken of and explained in this thread.

Further, I can no longer edit the post to which you refer.

You are a Bluelighter so you know that.

Would you have me use CAS numbers or IUPAC names in future posts?

The posts I make often deal with cutting-edge Cannabinoids whose 'common' names either don't exist or have not 'settled down' into widespread agreement, and they often have no CAS numbers.

CAS numbers and IUPAC names are two final and precise solutions to the quandary you mention.

CAS numbers are poorly-explanatory yet CAS numbers are each unique to a molecule and are managed by a single central entity, the Chemical Abstracts Service: a corporation. Thus there can be no confusion about the relationship between identifier and molecule.

Unfortunately many of these new Cannabinoids have no CAS numbers and I lack the funds to pay for a CAS number for each.

IUPAC names are also nearly-perfect in their unique ability to describe molecules but not much more helpful to the layman than CAS numbers due to their complexity and often arcane notation. I can include IUPAC names if you feel this would help.

I have several structure-to-IUPAC-name converters accessible on my machine for just this purpose but have chosen not to use them yet so as not to scare folks away.

How about you make some comments on what you read just now in the thread you made on ADAMANTYL-THPINACA?

You made that thread because you're interested in ADAMANTYL-THPINACA, correct?

You still have time to comment on the QED simulations, renderings and predictions I just made on the ADAMANTYL-THPINACA thread before I make an even larger post in this thread with portions of that data and a whole new field of QED simulations, renderings and predictions of novel new Cannabinoid molecules that I will add below this post right here tomorrow.

I want your honest and detailed feedback on the molecular ECD renderings rather than a repost of arbitrary naming conventions that has already been addressed by myself in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Cannabinoid QED Simulation: Part 1

Before I present new Cannabinoid designs in QED-simulated graphics some terminological explanation will be necessary.

First up is Synthetic Cannabinoid Group Terminology which I will use from now on in this post and further posts when referring to these molecules' structural features:


fRBW8wl.jpg

Synthetic Cannabinoid Group Terminology

A second and key piece of terminology is also required to understand these molecules' structure-activity relationships: Electrostatic Charge Distribution:Cannabinoids work not by the typical mechanism of Hydrogen Bonding but instead activate CB-receptors in a different way: Stacking:
Thus Cannabinoid molecules are free of Hydrophilic Carboxyls, etc. and are almost exclusively fat-soluble.

Their Tails and Linked Groups are always Lipophilic & Hydrophobic.

An example of a recent and novel Cannabinoid design is ADAMANTYL-THPINACA.

ADAMANTYL-THPINACA
has a small point of rather high terminal electronegativity due to the Oxygen atom at the distal end of its Cyclohexyl:


KkyJAYG.jpg



ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's [RED] spot of high Electronegativity on the tip of its Tail Cyclohexyl is key to its potency.

In the last few days I have designed a few superior & more terminally-Electronegative Cannabinoid candidates based on the structure of APINACA which ADAMANTYL-THPINACA itself is only one Tail-difference away from. My designs also modify only the Tail of APINACA.

The Adamantyl-Cannabinoid family:

5Cl-AKB48
5F-AKB48 [1400742-13-3]
AB-001 [1345973-49-0]
ADAMANTYL-THPINACA
AKB48 (APINACA) [1345973-53-6]
APICA (2NE1) [1345973-50-3]
FUB-AKB48 (FUB-APINACA)
STS-135 [1354631-26-7]


Adamantyl-Cannabinoids rely upon Tail terminal Electronegativity for both their absolute potency and CB1:CB2 activation ratio.

Our Future shall not be our Past but only by understanding History may we avoid its mistakes and craft a better Future for ourselves and any Descendents. This post is about the world's public Adamantyl Story beginning with APICA and ending yesterday with ADAMANTYL-THPINACA. However, rather than ending it turns out the Adamantyl-Cannabinoid train track was still under construction, having not yet reached its ultimate destinations.

Today a new section of that track is to be hammered into place by the blood, sweat and tears of one illegitimate designer.


wwJuIlu.jpg


APINACA
achieves a slight increase in potency and CB1:CB2 activation ratio relative to APICA but these increases are small and incremental.

5F-APINACA is a quantum leap ahead of its two predecessors in potency and CB1:CB2 ratio due to a single revolutionary change.

This same change transformed the already-potent JWH-018 into monstrous AM-2201: Tail Terminal Fluorination.

Specifically: A massive increase in Tail Terminal Electronegativity relative to their non-Fluorinated parent molecules.

Below are corresponding Electrostatic Potential Maps of the three molecules above.

These Cannabinoid molecules are freshly-baked from their raw skeletal forms first by Energy Minimization then Quantum Electrostatic Simulation and finally Rendering.

.
iXmk0CC.jpg


The small potency increase from APICA to APINACA is due to a non-terminal effect: the removal of a small quantity of charge from its Core to its Linked Group due to Core Indole to Indazole conversion. APINACA's loss of one Hydrogen at that atomic position due to the substituted Nitrogen's Trivalency relative to the replaced Carbon's Tetravalency increases the effect.

APINACA's Tail is less Electronegative than APICA's but not by enough to ruin the Core substitutional effects.

Nonetheless, these differences are tiny quibbles compared to 5F-APINACA's Quantum leap in potency and CB1:CB2 activation ratio.


Now for the next comparison: 5F-APINACA (5F-AKB48) versus ADAMANTYL-THPINACA:


K1YSiai.jpg


Note how the Energy-Minimized form of ADAMANTYL-THPINACA adopts a unique bend in its Ethyl Linker between the Cyclohexyl Tail and Indazole Core.

This unique bend and cylic Tail are two radical departures from the Adamantyl family's otherwise linear Alkyl Tail feature except one.

The only other Adamantyl Cannabinoid exhibiting this bend - and the cyclic tail which also accompanies it - is FUB-APINACA (FUB-AKB48):



Ffgy2qn.jpg


Note how ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's Energy-Minimized Cyclohexyl group bends in the opposite direction to FUB-APINACA's Benzyl group.

1. The CB-Receptor effects of the Ethyl Linker's different bend-angle are too complex for me to predict with any chance of success so I will stick to the Electronegativity-based predictions below. Before leaving the Ethyl Linker behind however, it is valuable to note two unarguable characteristics it possesses:

1.1 The Ethyl Linker is bend-flexible: it allows the attached cycle whether Benzyl or Cyclohexyl to bend relative to the rest of the Cannabinoid molecule. That bend angle can change as this type of Cannabinoid fits into CB-receptors due to the Ethyl Linker's flexibility.

1.2 The Ethyl Linker is rotatable. Note that ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's Cyclohexyl is rotated clockwise ~20° relative to FUB-APINACA's Benzyl. That rotation was not inherent when I assembled these two molecules. It spontaneously occurred after I instructed the QED software to minimize these molecules' energy. This means the Ethyl Linker is easily rotatable under the small Electrostatic pressures present in the rest of the molecule. CB-receptors exert many more and quantitatively-larger Electrostatic pressures as these molecules fit into them.


2. ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's terminal Oxygen shows bright [RED] indicating very high Electronegativity while FUB-APINACA's terminal Fluorine is merely [LEMON-YELLOW] which indicates much lower Electronegativity.

3. One might be led to conclude that ADAMANTYL-THPINACA will have higher potency and CB1:CB2 Receptor Activation Ratio than FUB-APINACA; however, ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's [RED] Oxygen is buried in its Cyclohexyl ring while FUB-APINACA's [LEMON-YELLOW] Fluorine sticks out.

4. Despite FUB-APINACA's terminal Fluorine atom having much lower Electronegativity than ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's termocyclic Oxygen, FUB-APINACA's Fluorine sticks out aggressively like a Molecular Phallus thus exposing itself to far more interaction with Female [Yin] CB-Receptors. Receptors are hollow areas corresponding to Female [Yin] organs while their ligands correspond to Male [Yang] parts.

5. My subjective call is that due to being buried as part of a Cyclohexyl ring - and despite its higher Electronegativity - ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's net terminal Electronegative effect at CB-Receptors will be lower than that of FUB-APINACA's. Thus its potency and CB1:CB2 Receptor Activation Ratio will also be lower.

6. ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's designer(s) earn my respect for creating a CB-agonist with decent terminal Electronegativity while avoiding the use of a toxic Halogen such as Fluorine or Chlorine. Such a design takes real creativity and/or lots of in-Silico guess/test cycles as I myself have recently found out. Instead they used a Pyrosafe Oxygen atom which will not result in toxic product formation when the molecule is heated to or past its thermal decomposition temperature. This is ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's most valuable Harm-Reduction feature.

7. Finally, ADAMANTYL-THPINACA's Tail is a Cyclohexyl ring rather than FUB-APINACA's Benzyl. This is a large difference thus making effect extrapolation difficult but not necessarily irrelevant or impossible.

We do have limited forum reports of FUB-APINACA human test results from which to extrapolate the potential effects of ADAMANTYL-THPINACA:

ChemsRUS: AFB-48/fub-akb48*
ChemsRUS: FUB-AKB-48*
Flashback Forums: FUB-AKB48


Forum reports indicate that FUB-APINACA has good potency but are as yet too few & vague to draw a consistent picture of its effects.

Yet FUB-APINACA is still the most similar Adamantyl-Cannabinoid to ADAMANTYL-THPINACA thus the comparison.

The next case for examination is a classic one already mentioned: the conversion by a single Hydrogen to Fluorine atomic substitution of JWH-018 to AM-2201. Some users would go so far as to say that this transformation converted Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde. This single-atom replacement moved JWH-018 far along the path from intoxicant to chemical weapon. Plenty of steps down Jacob's Ladder. To call this change anything less than a true Quantum leap would be inaccurate.


mXPkdWH.jpg


The Electrostatic Charge Distribution images below differ in some respects from those above in that a separate software more capable of finding the optimal Energy-Minimized molecular conformer was used. This resulted in not only changed geometries for the AM-Series below but also a gigantic increase in the time taken to find each molecule's EM-state.

The previous software found each molecule's less-than-optimal EM-state in only ~2s. Today a new software replaces this function but takes far longer to find the true lowest-energy EM-state by testing vastly-more possibilities using better algorithms. Worse, interchanging the molecule datafile between these two softwares wipes out the cached ECD data thus making each process longer.
The total time required to complete all calculations and rendering by both softwares added together has today become much longer than it was yesterday:

EM-Optimization: ~2h22m
ECD-QED: ~27m
ECD-Render: ~6m
Total: ~3h55m


This new higher-accuracy multipart process was executed today to create Electrostatic Charge Distribution maps of both JWH-018 and AM2201:


vlrvWzo.jpg


Conclusions

1. Once again we see the magic trick which turns JWH-018's Dr. Jekyll into AM-2201's Mr. Hyde: the replacement of an Electropositive Terminal Hydrogen with an Electronegative Fluorine. Despite the other characteristics noted below, increasing Tail Terminal Electronegativity by substitution of more-Electronegative atoms for less-Electronegative ones works to increase both potency and CB1:CB2 activation ratio.

2. Note the unusally-extreme rotational angle between the Core and linked Napthyl group in both molecules. Looking at the skeletal structures of these two again, one can be forgiven the impression that the entire molecule is planar just because each functional group is planar - contrary to the 3D Adamantyl group of the Adamantyl-Cannabinoids. This presumption is false as demonstrated by the images above. The electric charges cause the Linked Group to rotate into a lower-energy conforming position relative to the rest of the molecule. Judging by the position of the [RED] Oxygen atom the Linker itself does not experience this rotation. The entire rotation of the Napthyl Linked Group is due to one twisted C-O bond: specifically, the Oxygen-Napthyl bond.

3. It is obvious that the unusally-high absolute potency of both JWH-018 and AM-2201 is due to the radically-tilted Napthyl group; the Linker, Core and Tail are all identical to other much less-potent Cannabinoids so are not causative.

4. The Napythyl Linked Group's radical tilt relative to the Core exposes the linker's Oxygen atom much more to the extramolecular environment than the Oxygen of any Adamantyl-Cannabinoid. The Adamantyl group is bulky in a roughly-cubic 3D form so any way it rotates or bends, it has a much higher tendency to cover the Linker's Oxygen. Not so with the planar Napthyl group which when tilted at any angle other than those close to or equiplanar with the Core, exposes that Oxygen atom quite well.

Next up for examination tomorrow are the Tetramethylcyclopropyl-Cannabinoids: UR-144 & 5F-UR144 [XLR-11].


* - vendor-related links removed
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tetramethylcyclopropyl Cannabinoids: ECD Analysis

It's time to examine the three common Tetramethylcyclopropyl Cannabinoids as representatives of their family:

AB-005 [CAS# 895155-25-6]
[1-[(1-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl]-1H-indol-3-yl](2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)-methanone

UR-144 [CAS#1199943-44-6]
(1-pentylindol-3-yl)-(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone

5F-UR-144 (XLR-11) [CAS#1364933-54-9]
(1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone



8CPE3Fu.jpg


Forum Reports

AB-005: Weak: Low-CB1 / High-CB2 Activator
UR-144: Potent: Low-CB1 / Very High-CB2 Activator
5F-UR144: Hyperpotent: Mid-CB1 / Very High-CB2 Activator



geg9pLO.jpg



Analysis

1. The only structural difference between these three molecules is their Tails.

2.1 AB-005 has a bizarre 1-methyl-2-piperidinyl Tail.

2.2 AB-005's bizarre Tail points rightwards unlike any other Cannabinoids I've seen to date.

2.3 AB-005's Tail has a point of high Electronegativity centered on and caused by its lone Nitrogen atom.

That point of high Electronegativity is useless to support decent potency or reasonable CB1R:CB2R Activation Ratio for two reasons:

2.3.1 It's buried too deeply in the 1-methyl-2-piperidinyl ring to interact much if it all with CBRs.
2.3.2 It points in a bizarre direction - a distant angle from that of other high-potency Cannabinoids' Alkyl or Cyclic Tails.

3. UR-144's Tail is the common Pentyl seen in many other Cannabinoids. That Pentyl chain is Lipophilic and points in the correct direction unlike AB-005's Fail-Tail so does not hinder UR-144's potency. UR-144's decent Tail allows its Tetramethylcyclopropyl group to shine with its powerful CB2R activation power.

4. 5F-UR144's Tail is Terminally Fluorinated as can be seen by the obvious & highly-Electronegative [RED] Fluorine atom at its tip. This massively increases both its overall potency and CB1:CB2 Receptor Activation Ratio. Even with that increase in CB1:CB2 ratio however, the Tetramethylcyclopropyl group's powerful CB2R activation remains dominant.


It seems the good folks at Abbot Laboratories did not have sufficient intuition or perhaps drug-forum reports to be culpable for their poor decision of crafting the failure of a Cannabinoid known as AB-005. Luckily third-person hindsight coupled with decent intuition, forum reports and some good QED software can provide reasonable explanations for AB-005's properties relative to its more motivated brothers. At the time of its creation, AB-005's unique stucture was an unlucky guess that struck out.

In summary, the Tetramethylcyclopropyl-Cannabinoid family is dominated by its high CB2R activation capacity accompanied by much lower CB1R effects. Tail Terminal Fluorination so far as examples indicate increases this family's CB1:CB2 Ratio and also boosts the potency by a decent amount but CB2R effects continue to dominate despite this change.
 
Last edited:
Linear-Tailed Polyfluorinated Cannabinoids: Part 1

It's time to examine the Polyfluorinated Cannabinoids. This is a large topic so this first post is titled, "Linear-Tailed Polyfluorinated Cannabinoids: Part 1"

Let's start with the only Polyfluorinated Cannabinoid ever to reach the 'market': XLR-12.

XLR-12 (4TFM-UR144) [CAS# 895155-78-9]
(2,​2,​3,​3-​tetramethylcyclopropyl)[1-​(4,​4,​4-​trifluorobutyl)-​1H-​indol-​3-​yl]-​methanone​


Vo08Mei.jpg


XLR-12 was and continues to be a market failure. This Cannabinoid is named as Compound 4 in the study below:


"In this study, we describe the identification of 19 newly distributed designer drugs, of which 8 were synthetic cannabinoids (1-8), 5 were cathinone derivatives (9-13), and 6 were other substances (14-19) (Fig. 1). In addition, we investigated the combination patterns of detected designer drugs, including compounds 1–19, in 104 illegal products purchased between November 2013 and May 2014."

XLR-12 never made it to widespread popularity despite its promising design.

XLR-12's Brilliant designer even shortened XLR-11's Pentyl tail to a Butyl in an obvious attempt to avoid what he saw as potential excess Steric Hindrance due to Terminal Trifluorination.

He didn't remember that many very potent Cannabinoids such as the CHMINACA & FUBINACA series have bulky cyclic Tails which do not hinder their potency.

Two days ago I finally understood why XLR-12 is such a failure: it's more expensive to manufacture than XLR-11 however its potency is lower or no better than its monofluorinated parent. Why?

XLR-12's designer - likely a Chinese peon sitting behind a Dell Optiplex inside some nameless & likely grungy Chinese chemical factory - had the same Brilliant Idea I had a week ago. The Brilliant Idea was for him and also for myself to increase the Tail's terminal electronegativity by further Fluoro-substitutions. Replace one or two of the last two Hydrogens on XLR-11's terminal Fluoromethyl group with Fluorines.

He was as partly-mistaken as I was.

The single Fluoro-substitution of one Hydrogen atom thereby converting Cannabinoid Jekylls into their superpotent Hyde-versions works well for those below:

AKB48 => 5F-AKB48
JWH-018 => AM-2201
UR-144 => 5F-UR144

In fact it ought to and likely does work well for any Cannabinoid of similar basic design.

However, no further improvement in potency or CB1r:CB2r activation ratio can be achieved by further Fluoro-substitutions on either Alkane-tailed or Clyclohexyl-tailed Cannabinoids. At least not enough improvement to justify the increased cost of manufacture. The idea is sound in theory but its few real-world implementations have been failures in practice. Electronegativity does not come from Fluorine atoms. Fluorine atoms are thieves that steal electrons from other atoms & groups they're attached to because they're hungry for those electrons.

Thieves don't create wealth - they just redistribute it into their own greedy hands. And just like thieves Fluorine atoms cannot accumulate any more loot of Electrons stolen from other atoms unless those atoms are both willing and able to give up Electrons. The Fluorine atom attached to the terminal Carbon in all of the successful Fluoro-Cannabinoids can steal Electrons from that Carbon and its attached Hydrogens. However, that is the limit to what it can steal because the rest of the chain is fully-saturated! It's an Alkane chain with each Carbon's electrons being fully-bound to two Hydrogens. Same goes for Cyclohexyl-tailed Cannabinoids.

Substituting a second or third Fluorine atom to in an attempt to suck Electrons harder accomplishes nothing because no matter how hard those Fluorine atoms suck, the Electrons from the other atoms deeper in the chain are fixed into place tightly enough that they hardly move at all. I learned this lesson four days ago. Shivering & drooling with excitement, I plugged the first of my terminally-trifluorinated Cannabinoid molecules into the QED simulator. The final rendering was a sorry thing to behold.

Instead of a glorious giagantic group of three [FLAMING RED] Fluorine atoms at the tail's tip I saw three green Fluorine atoms - each of the three less electronegative than the original single [YELLOW] Fluorine atom. Furthermore, the chain behind the glorious pumped-up trifluorinated tip wasn't much bluer than before, indicating that no more Electrons could be stolen. It took me about a day to figure out the problem but I didn't want to believe it.

There is a way around this problem: Delocalize the Tail's Electrons:


β-Carotene is a great and natural example of Electron delocalization:


250px-Beta-Carotin.svg.png


β-Carotene

Notice the alternating Single-Double-Single-Double Carbon-Carbon bonds along β-Carotene's chain? The magic is in the pi Bonds [π bonds] which allow Electrons to move along the chain instead of being fixed in one location. Delocalized.

What would happen if an Electron thief like Fluorine was substituted at the end of a chain whose structure allowed its electrons to easily move instead of being fixed in one place? I figure that the Fluorine atom could then suck and actually get more electrons. One Fluorine atom wouldn't get much more than its fill, but the case would be dramatically-different with two or three of them attached to the end. Then all the greedy Fluorines attached to the tip could drink their fill of Electrons without just stealing them from each other. After all, the poor terminal Carbon in the existing Alkane-Tailed Cannabinoids has already been stolen from so much that it has become Destitute of Electrons. Riches to Rags with just one parasitical Fluorine atom attached to it like a Tapeworm or bloodsucking Flea.

Candidates 8 and 9 are illustrative. Candidate 8 is the second-last of my designs as of today and one that makes use of Oxygen atoms instead of Fluorines for the purpose of increasing terminal Electronegativity as ADAMANTYL-THPINACA does but with one exception: a single Fluorine atom at the very terminus to use up one final bond.

My design incorporates four Oxygens - two linked to each Sulfur atom - in a very compact terminal structure that has high Lipophilicity and has the potential [no pun intended] for high Electronegativity:


DdBr45k.jpg



gjYiXBB.jpg


One C-C bond was unsaturated to create Candidate 9 from Candidate 8. That bond is not even directly connected to the first Sulfur atom but nonetheless it delocalizes enough electron pressure to increase the greedy terminal Oxygens' Electronegativity: Candidate 9's Oxygens are [DEEP ORANGE] rather than Candidate 8's [LIGHT ORANGE] colour.

Candidate 9's [BLUER] Tail indicates that electrons are now being withdrawn from one atom deeper toward the Core along its Tail.

The gimmicky Parafluorodisulfonyl tip was designed to suck electrons as hard as possible and was marginally more successful than previous Candidates' Polyfluoro tips.

Tomorrow we will find out what happens to more 'normal' Sulfur-free mono- and poly-Fluorinated Cannabinoids when their tales are unsaturated.

Terminal Electronegativity is not likely to increase much in Monofluorinated cases but is expected to show significant increases in Polyfluorinated molecules.
 
Last edited:
5F-AKB48 Termolinear Polyfluorination: Part 1

It is now time to examine my failure and success with the Polyfluorination of the old favorite 5F-AKB48.

5F-APINACA (5F-AKB48): CAS# 1400742-13-3
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)indazole-3-carboxamide

5TFM-APINACA (5TFM-AKB48)
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-(5,5,5-trifluoropentyl)indazole-3-carboxamide

5TFM-4UP-APINACA (5TFM-4UP-AKB48)
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-[(1E,3E)-5,5,5-trifluoropenta-1,3-dienyl]indazole-3-carboxamide


qyFtSSJ.jpg


The two simple modifications which transform the powerperformer 5F-AKB48 into the monster 5TFM-4UP-AKB48 are:

1. Terminal Tail Trifluorination to draw electrons from the Tail's backbone into its Terminus [Tip].
2. Desaturation of Tail Carbon-Carbon bonds #1 and #3 to allow electron mobility [Delocalization].

Will the theory work in practice?

Let's find out.


mshbs55.jpg

It works.

5TFM-4UP-AKB48's Tail backbone is no longer [BLUE] from withdrawal of its electrons caused by the Trifluoromethyl substituent but has changed to [GREEN] as it is has now become an electrically-conducting Quantum Wire - a conduit for mobile electrons linking the immense power of the [CORE] to the tip of the molecular [TAIL].

That electric linkage allows the three Fluorine atoms at the Tail's tip to draw more electronic pressure from both the tail itself and now also the electronically-linked Core.

Yet this is not the end of optimizations to yield greater Tail Terminal Electronegativity.

I must find the true source and root of all power. In this quest that source comes from the maximal electronic pressure concentrated at the tip of the Tail.

We are nowhere near the end of this track. The first of further optimizations awaits the next installment of Rational Cannabinoid Design: From Intoxicant to Chemical Weapon.
 
Last edited:
I'm with you on that one. I'd love to see some of these thought processes applied to some of the newer cannabinoids.

One of the chemicals I came across recently that reminded me of this thread is SGT-78-
AKA: 4-CN-CUMYL-BUTINACA, CUMYL-4CN-BINACA, CUMYL-CB-PINACA, and CUMYL-CYBINACA
IUPAC name for this chemical is N-(2-phenylpropan-2-yl)-1-(4-cyanobutyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
~>(see molecular structure in JMOL here
Pay close attention to the terminal end of the butyl chain. That's cyanide just hanging out there. I'm not convinced that it's necessarily worth freaking out about,, especially not in a single dose of less than 1 mg, but I'm also not lining up to smoke anything like this before more information is available,, or before a person much more educated than I, can chime in..

Cyanide is obviously only dangerous at a threshold level, and according to some math I saw on a German forum, even if 100% of the total mass of the SGT-78 ingested were converted to cyanide (complete conversion couldn't happen,) a dose of approximately 2000 mg of SGT-78 would be required to reach toxic levels of cyanide (I don't know if there's any cumulative effect where repeat exposure would increase risks more than with any other halogenated cannabinoid.) Cyanide is a pseudohalogen so it increases potency of cannabinoids similarly to how fluorine does, and this chemical is structurally identical to 5F-CUMYL-PINACA with the exception of the cyanide replacing the fluorine in 5F-CUMYL-PINACA, and SGT-78 is supposedly active in the <1 mg range, so death by overdose of a CB1r (and possibly CB2r) full-agonist is surely going to happen waaaaay before cyanide toxicity, assuming free cyanide is produced at all.
I believe another user said that some amount <10% of the total mass of cannabinoid used (perhaps a maximum of ~7%? I can't remember or find the post now,) could convert to cyanide, so even 2000 mg of this chemical would probably not result in cyanide toxicity if it does in fact metabolize to such.

Now- here's where my thought train goes... These figured seem to be for ingestion of SGT-78, but most users will obviously be burning it with partial vaporization. If the concept is true that burning fluorinated cannabinoids results in the pyrogenesis of hydrofluoric acid (which I've heard debated, though I'm inclined to believe it,) could it follow that burning SGT-78 may result in the pyrogenesis of hydrogen cyanide? And would the fact that it's smoked/partially vaporized increase the dangers if so? These are questions I'm not equipped to answer for myself.

I should also add that cyano groups are very common for replacing halogens in molecules, and several commercially available prescription medicines have cyano groups in their molecular structures, but those medications are not being smoked, and (ignoring the dosage range here) smoking could be what makes the difference. I just don't know enough to say for sure.


Anyway, it reminded me of this thread and it's food for thought! If nothing else, it's definitely interesting.
 
I should also add that cyano groups are very common for replacing halogens in molecules, and several commercially available prescription medicines have cyano groups in their molecular structures, but those medications are not being smoked, and (ignoring the dosage range here) smoking could be what makes the difference. I just don't know enough to say for sure.


Anyway, it reminded me of this thread and it's food for thought! If nothing else, it's definitely interesting.[/FONT][/SIZE]

B12 vitamin aka cyanocobalamin, also food for thought.

Regarding the rest of the thread, someone sure seems to have a fixation for fluoride :D. If you asked a psychiatrist, they'd probably say it's awesome for depression (like, prozac?).

I'm thinking of the age old adage, the difference between medicine and poison lies in the dosage. Chemotherapy... weaponized fentanyl etc.
 
Good read this is a manifest right. I get it that way.

The good synthetic cannabinoids that appeared after jwh-018. Like jwh-210 or was it 073. Well 2-ne-1 was one of them and somewhat lesser akb-48, yeah both japanese girl bands. Ab-fubinaca felt ok all shared some simularities. But why ur-144 don't even mention the 4F version, 5f-akb-48 or am-2201 were created, they felt like real disasters. It never became clear. I stopped there as I saw what was coming an never ending search.
 
Jwh18 was the super intense one...like a clean 4hr marijuana high but you might wig out. I loved it. Jwh 73 and jwh 210 are mellow and more gentle in action. They were all good ones.
 
Top