JWH-018 and JWH-073 Illegal in Kansas

[cybervisionx]

JWH-018 and JWH-073 Illegal in Kansas
http://dopegamenews.com/?p=266
3/18/10

Today Kansas was named the first state to outlaw a spice product, K2, more specifically the chemicals found in it. JWH-018 and JWH-073 are now schedule 1 substances according to Kansas state law.

Sheriff Frank Denning said, “Today is an historic day, in just a few months with the hard work and dedication of my deputies, we went from a basic law enforcement investigation to becoming the first state in the country to tackle these new drugs.” – Quoted from gardneredge.com.

Clemson University conducted a study on these two compounds and found that they are more potent than THC (Active chemical in marijuana).

This is the first step into national prohibition. Many states will follow Kansas in their action to outlaw these substances. If you like your spice or JWH compounds, its a good time to stock up.

 

[cybervisionx]

This sucks.

Now the propaganda machine is going to be geared to black ball jwh compounds.

I do think, however, that the negative ads against JWH that state that THC is less potent may help with legalization of marijuana....

Just a thought.

 

[egor]

After the BBB debacle, this was inevitable...

 

[Bob Loblaw]

What rich, white youth died to cause this??

 

[egor]

^None that I know of...

 

[TheAzo]

JWH-018 and JWH-073 are likely-carcinogens that produce a shitty approximation of a weed high.

The problem is that this means the CP's are next on the chopping block.

 

[egor]

I didn't think JWH-073 produced a shitty high, but I did stop using it due to probable carcinogenic metabolites.

 

[slimvictor]

I really enjoyed the high of whatever JWH is in K2, but I am also scared of the possibility of it causing cancer.
If this turns out to be incorrect after several years of research, I will be kicking myself for not stocking up now, however...

 

[Volcano]

Wasn't it Coolio who swore up and down that JWH wasn't carcinogenic???

 

[Coolio]

Not that it's not carcinogenic - that there's no evidence that it's carcinogenic.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating something is true, it's safe to assume it's false.

 

[slimvictor]

Not that it's not carcinogenic - that there's no evidence that it's carcinogenic.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating something is true, it's safe to assume it's false.

It depends how thorough the research is.

 

[Coolio]

It depends how thorough the research is.

In the absence of research, one ought to assume every potential property of the substance to be false.

 

[vecktor]

In the absence of research, one ought to assume every potential property of the substance to be false.

Coolio that is pure panglossian rubbish and you know it.

the abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence.

 

[phr]

lol You take a lot of risks, coolio?

 

[slimvictor]

In the absence of evidence demonstrating something is true, it's safe to assume it's false.

It is most certainly not "safe" in the typical sense of the world.
Rather, it is potentially very dangerous, I would say.

 

[stuckinaloop]

Not that it's not carcinogenic - that there's no evidence that it's carcinogenic.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating something is true, it's safe to assume it's false.

Coolio...what are you talking about, seriously? What makes you think that is a valid statement??

 

[Coolio]

What evidence is there that it's carcinogenic? Feel free to iterate over it all.

 

[stuckinaloop]

I just wanted to chime in with something I read. Now this is here-say...they didn't include any actual souces

"The potential carcinogenicity of the JWH compounds centers around that naphthalene ring hanging off the side. The studies with JWH-015 showed that it was being metabolized via epoxidation in vitro, a pathway known to produce carcinogenic metabolites from many polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. There's no in vivo data to indicate whether this pathway would be utilized or any studies on that particular metabolite to indicate whether it would actually be carcinogenic. This group, however, is shared by nearly all of the JWH compounds, including the most commonly found ones, JWH-018 and -073.

There's some speculation that JWH-081, which has an additional methoxy group hanging off the naphthalene ring, may avoid this risk since it would be open to more metabolic pathways besides epoxidation, but no actual studies to give any data one way or the other. JWH-250 has a 2'-methoxyphenyl group in place of the naphthalene ring, so epoxide formation is probably off the table, but given the complete lack of studies on how these compounds behave (beyond the non-blinded n=1 studies of their subjective effects), there's no telling what other adverse effects they may or may not have."

But given the lack of research, I don't see how you can SAFELY ASSUME its not carcinogenic...

 

[Thou]

Does anyone have a link to all prohibited substances specific to Kansas?

I just moved here and need this information and they make it hard to find for some reason

Thanks.

 

[EndlessSummer]

Does anyone have a link to all prohibited substances specific to Kansas?

I just moved here and need this information and they make it hard to find for some reason

Thanks.

Did you have anything in mind? It's usually easier to list what isn't banned. Naturally anything federally banned is likely banned. It's Kansas, not California.