• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

AM-2201 (1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FPU4eva

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 27, 2008
Messages
208
a analog of jwh-018 it would be banned according to the new schedule of jwh-018 because i hear jwh-019 is just a analog of 018 so its banned also. any confirmation from the smartest people on the internet(u guys)
 
Yes, presumably. Not that it really matters. The genie is out of the bottle. Expect about six trillion new cannabinoids in the next few years. For better or worse they're gonna keep coming like a porn star with a mortgage.

By my post I in no way include myself among the smartest people on the internet.
 
Bumped for people thoughts on what WOULDN'T be an analog to any of the banned chemicals. My first impression is that 250 (and it's branded derivatives) wouldn't, but I'm curious what others think?
 
If my memory serves (at least in Canadian law) anything that is sold as producing effects similar to a controlled substance is a controlled sunstance too.

Even if another family of cannabinoids is discovered the Fed is going to jump on it.
 
sekio said:
If my memory serves (at least in Canadian law) anything that is sold as producing effects similar to a controlled substance is a controlled sunstance too.

Even if another family of cannabinoids is discovered the Fed is going to jump on it.
Click to expand...
US law also requires a structural similarity. And these are sold as incense (lol). My thinking is anything with the napthalene moiety would be an analog of 018, 073, and 200. Ultimately I suppose it's up to a jury. I am certain that many places are planning to continue selling various cannabinoids, so time will tell.
 
I'm not good with structures or metabolism, but I might hold off on this one. There were concerns about AM-694, another cannabinoid with an alkyl fluoride group. Some simple fluorine containing carbon chains are toxic. Someone with more knowledge could give you a more definitive answer.

Check out here for the toxic metabolite
And here for the thread on AM-694
 
Once JWH-018 goes into schedule I
I'm afraid you're fucked for analogue fun
 
This is a horrible substance:

AM-694 may metabolize into fluoroacetate. (Probable that this would also)
JWH-018 likely metabolizes into epoxides, so it would be carcinogenic. This is based on the fact JWH-015 has epoxide metabolites. [1]

These compounds the vendors are sending out truly are not well thought out.

[1]:
Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 2006, 386(5), p.1345.
Click to expand...
 
This irrational fear over napthyls on JWH causing cancer is just that, irrational. Naproxen doesn't cause cancer among other thigns and that has a big scary napthyl. Smoking JWH off tinfoil would generate less napthalene and epoxides through pyrolisis than smoking a cigarette. To quote from another thread:

Coolio said:
Except the naphthalene in JWH-018 is never freed. We know how it's metabolized now. The naphthalene ring is hydroxylated, then those hydroxylated metabolites are conjugated with glucoronide.

If combustion leads to pyrolysis and freeing of naphthalene vapors, and the total amount of naphthalene in a dose of JWH-018 is equivalent to that found in a cigarette, you're still only receiving a fraction of the amount of each cigarette. The naphthalene in cigarette smoke is not usually considered an important factor in tobacco's carcinogenicity.

The evidence out there leads me to believe JWH-018 would shrink your tumors, not cause them.
Click to expand...

The napthyl group isn't freed, and moreover it isn't metabolized to an epoxide that is not immediately metabolically detoxified, or is indeed just a chemical intermediate.

The fluoroacetate hoom-hah is just that, unreasonable. N-dealkylation is certainly a main mode of metabolism for these compounds, but I've yet to see people drop dead from fluoroacetate poisoning - our fatty acid metabolism doesn't generate AcF from odd numbered carbon chains.

The cellular toxicity data reinforces this even further. I personally believe that napthyl-JWHs (and even the fluorinated/iodinated versions) are safe when used reasonably and not pyrolized to fuck.
 
sekio said:
This irrational fear over napthyls on JWH causing cancer is just that, irrational. Naproxen doesn't cause cancer among other thigns and that has a big scary napthyl.
Click to expand...
You were obviously not carefully following the respective discussions. The plain presence of a naphthyl-moiety was never questioned, but rather (in e.g. JWH-018 ) its presence with concomitant absence of any further viable site for metabolisation.


sekio said:
Smoking JWH off tinfoil would generate less napthalene and epoxides through pyrolisis than smoking a cigarette.
Click to expand...
By what kind of analysis did you come to this conclusion? Are you aware of any study related to the halflife of any of the epoxide-metabolites?
Considering for example mono-hydroxylation on the naphthalene as the very first step in the metabolic degradation of JWH-018 (this was actually just recently described to occur in humans), I'd expect the intermediate epoxide to be a very lipophilic molecule (clogP = ca. 4-6! calculated here using O=C(C1=CN(CCCCC)C2=C1C=CC=C2)C3=CC=CC4=C3C5C(O5)C=C4 as template). And while epoxides can in theory get degraded to the corresponding hydroxyls by epoxide hydrolase, one should not forget that this enzyme is not evenly distributed within the cells (EC 3.3.2.9 is found mainly on the endoplasmatic reticulum and to some extend on the plasma membrane; EC 3.3.2.10 is soluble but was described to preferentially accept trans-configured epoxides as substrates, while the aforementioned JWH-018-metabolite is technically cis-configured). Hence, there is actually the realistic chance that an epoxide-containing metabolite can either react a vital cell organ or survice an a sufficiently hydrophobic compartiment of the cell.


sekio said:
The napthyl group isn't freed, and moreover it isn't metabolized to an epoxide that is not immediately metabolically detoxified, or is indeed just a chemical intermediate.
Click to expand...
Since when does the definition of "metabolite" stop with short-living species? And again I have to ask where the certainty that these species are "immediately metabolically detoxified" comes from?


sekio said:
I personally believe that napthyl-JWHs (and even the fluorinated/iodinated versions) are safe when used reasonably and not pyrolized to fuck.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately doesthe most widely preferred route of application of the AAIs (smoking) include naturally that a good fraction simply gets "pyrolized to fuck". Science doesn't really offer much place for personal believes, I'm afraid.


- Murphy
 
Last edited:
Sekio, have you actually been following this discussion or just have a really bad memory and understanding of what has been said regarding this?

The concerns people have raised are very rational, but the logic you're using to claim that these are unlikely to be carcinogens is absolutely backwards, and really makes me wonder what you've been reading (or perhaps rather, if you've been reading).

Half of your claim is based around the drug not releasing naphthalene during smoking or metabolism. Talk about a red herring. First, I don't think anyone has ever suggested that these would require naphthalene to be a metabolite (or produced by over heating). It was certainly not a primary issue anyone has raised.

It doesn't need to be released for it to be a carcinogen. JWH-018 is two atoms short of being a hydrocarbon, which offers little for metabolic attack. As a result, epoxide formation is one of the primary routes for metabolism.

You say that actually epoxides aren't formed, and that instead hydroxylation followed by gluconuride formation is the primary route of metabolism. That's not wrong, but it's like saying that I smashed in the rear of a car without touching it, while ignoring that I first smashed into the car in front of it, which then went forward and hit that car. Not the best metaphore I suppose. You're only looking at the final steps, ignoring the epoxide intermediary.

See this thread: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=537252

So, epoxide metabolites are formed. Does that mean it's a carcinogen? Of course not, but it certainly increases the likelihood. The amount that's being consumed and thus the amount of epoxide intermediaries that are produced is relatively small, but certainly not something that should be ignored by any means. It could turn out that it's an extremely potent carcinogen. Or it might be a very weak one. No one can say for sure.

Until that's known, people should be severely limiting the amount they're consuming or at a minimum, be aware of the issues that have been raised and thus be able to make a better informed decision.

Odds are these are indeed carcinogens to some degree.

A drug isn't something that should be treated innocent until proven guilty.

Again, the fact that the epoxides are "just a chemical intermediate" is irrelevant. That's that's why your body produces them- for the purpose of attaching something it can then metabolise further, into something safer. That's the same purpose they serve with all these hydrocarbons.

the whole thing is an argument based in ignorance
 
Interesting coincidence that jwh-250 is both the toughest case to make as being an analog of the banned cannabinoids and probably the least likely to be a carcinogen. I can't help wondering if someone did that on purpose. Unlikely of course, but still curious.
 
it's not hard to make the case for it being an analogue at all. I don't mean to do the governments work for them, but you have to anticipate the arguments they'd make in court, and they'll win this one too.
 
am 2201

I have very high tolerance to JWH 018, and other synths, including AM-694. I recently tried what i thoought was a "medium" dose of AM 2201 and bacically lost my mind for 45 mins or so, very,very intense.
Just a heads up, this is to me the strongest synth on the market, and I've tried many, so be careful!

Does anyone else have the same opinion on this one, or is it just me?
 
Extremely Potent

thedon180 said:
I have very high tolerance to JWH 018, and other synths, including AM-694. I recently tried what i thoought was a "medium" dose of AM 2201 and bacically lost my mind for 45 mins or so, very,very intense.
Just a heads up, this is to me the strongest synth on the market, and I've tried many, so be careful!

Does anyone else have the same opinion on this one, or is it just me?
Click to expand...

First post. I do.

My buddy who is a huge stoner tried what he thought was going to be a normal dose, kid could barely talk or get up for like 30 minutes minimum after a single hit. This stuff is much more potent than something like JWH-073/200/019. 1 gram = 500-1000+ doses even if you have high tolerance. My friend who did it said that if he would have been able to he would have driven himself to the hospital.

At doses that begin to be uncomfortable there is something almost psychedelic about it. You start reviewing your life and soon conclude "damn I'm the real anti-christ, it's nice to know who you are." Half an hour of that shit will teach you to be careful.

At very low doses it is a nice strong effect. Short term memory loss lasts much longer than with weed and is more pronounced I think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top