• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Endegenous primary amide?

IlostaMadge

Bluelighter
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
514
A friend of mine (who sadly doesn't have an account here) recently emailed the manufacturers of the cinnamon blends (smoke, toke xxx, skunk a new breed of weed) and asked them about their contents.
The reply he received listed the contents as thus: -
Verbascum genus (carrier herba)
Aesculus genus (Escin and Esculin free)
Salvia genus (sclarea, not divinorum)
Cinnamomum genus (leaf only, no bark)
erythrina genus
An endogenous primary amide

Apparently the plants chemical profiles are fairly well known and it seems the high is due to the last ingredient, the endogenous primary amide, this surely can't be anandamide or oleandamide, but it definately feels (utterly subjective of course) like a CB agonist.
Any ideas what it could be?
 
Still chasing this one gents?

EDIT doesn't really have the kind of knowledgeable members to help out does it.

What would you do with this knowledge were you to obtain it? Or is it just natural curiosity?
 
It just pisses me off that they sell this stuff and no-one knows what it is.

Headshops try and get people to take them seriously and want the government to treat them like legitamte businesses but yet they sell products that could be anything for all they know... they're ruining it not just for themselves but also for us....

It's clearly sold to be smoked by humans, therefore every customer has the right to know what's in it.Research could be done on it's effects ect.

The sooner the information gets out, the better.
 
vinylmesh said:
It just pisses me off that they sell this stuff and no-one knows what it is.

Headshops try and get people to take them seriously and want the government to treat them like legitamte businesses but yet they sell products that could be anything for all they know... they're ruining it not just for themselves but also for us....

It's clearly sold to be smoked by humans, therefore every customer has the right to know what's in it.Research could be done on it's effects ect.

The sooner the information gets out, the better.

If I told you exactly what was in them all right now, you'd still be none the wiser. The names would mean nothing to you. You would find no literature or studies relating to them.

If they don't trust that what is written on the pack is what's inside, every customer has the right not to buy it. Coca-Cola don't tell us what's in their product "Vegetable extracts" is what they say.

Making this information public will do nothing but hurry the ban along.
 
Furious George said:
Making this information public will do nothing but hurry the ban along.


Well bzp's still legal where i'm from... so it mightn't get banned here.

Also people would start making pills of the stuff which would be far healthier.

If coca-cola really do that, then yeah... that's bad business practice too.

Also that argument you're using about "well don't buy it then" could just as easily be used to abolish every consumer law in existance.... not a good idea, my friend.

The stuff seems to be quite irritating on the throat, If it's oleamide then we know why..... Even the tiniest bits of information help!
 
so you are saying you discovered an active and unknown endogenous amide with notably effect...?

uh, sounds pretty whack...


people it is spiked with one of the synthetics likely that abound plain and simple,
 
Furious George said:
You would find no literature or studies relating to them.

So you know what's in them then?

If the whole "legal highs" industry really wants to be taken seriously as part of the harm-reduction strategy then they'll have to stop witholding information about ingredients. simple as.
 
vinylmesh said:
Well bzp's still legal where i'm from... so it mightn't get banned here.

Also people would start making pills of the stuff which would be far healthier.

If coca-cola really do that, then yeah... that's bad business practice too.

Also that argument you're using about "well don't buy it then" could just as easily be used to abolish every consumer law in existance.... not a good idea, my friend.

The stuff seems to be quite irritating on the throat, If it's oleamide then we know why..... Even the tiniest bits of information help!

But surely you don't believe that revealing a secret (chemical) ingredient will increase the longevity of these products? The powers that be will be all over it.

You know yourself that this is a grey area of law, that's why it's sold 'not for human consumption'. This is not your average consumer product. What I'm saying is it's out there for those that want it, and if the staus quo is maintained then it'll be there for a long time. If it really bothers people that they feel they don't know the 'whole truth', don't buy it. Buy pot instead, there's tons of literature on it's components, effets, and toxicology (or lack of). Digging around for 'dirt' to satisfy your curiosity will do nothing but get these taken off the shelves sooner.

I understand that it's natural to want to know everything there is to know, but this particular industry (in it's current incarnation) was founded on gray law, and keeping things hush-hush.
 
I value human health and information over having a high around for a long time.
Sorry if that goes against your stance on the subject, it's hardly harm reduction.

Whatever information I can gain, I can research and educate myself on the material in question, as for the name meaning nothing, that's arrogant and presumptuous of you, consumers have a right to know what they are taking.
 
vinylmesh said:
So you know what's in them then?

If the whole "legal highs" industry really wants to be taken seriously as part of the harm-reduction strategy then they'll have to stop witholding information about ingredients. simple as.

Why yes I do. But that's as far as we're going on that topic.

If the 'legal highs' industry wants to exist at all, they have to withold information. simple as.

My feeling is that the clock is ticking on all of the new generation of 'legal highs' (i.e. products that actually work as opposed to the dud products that have been around for the preceding decades).
 
IlostaMadge said:
I value human health and information over having a high around for a long time.
Sorry if that goes against your stance on the subject.

Whatever information I can gain, I can research and educate myself on the material in question, as for the name meaning nothing, that's arrogant and presumptuous of you, consumers have a right to know what they are taking.

Come off it Madge, you value your health that much and your sniffing 200mg MMQ? Why would you assume that the actives are detrimental to human health?

It's not arrogant or presumptious, I've looked. The data isn't on the web.
 
I generally don't value my own health, but I like to know what I am taking, then it's my responsibility if/when I abuse it, I don't assume it is detrimental, I just would like to know what it is, irregardless of whether information is there or not.
I had a high tolerance to MMQ, 200mg was a nice light high, and I built up to it in many small lines to watch for seizure effects; still point taken, I am a hypocrite, but I would still like to know what I take, I think it's highly irresponsible of legal high manufacturers to put unknown rc's in products without disclosing the ingredients.
I think the paranoia about it getting banned is over the top, I highly doubt the police are looking to ban the legal highs coming out, they don't fund criminal activity. and they reduce the amount of illegal drug use.
 
Furious George said:
It's not arrogant or presumptious, I've looked. The data isn't on the web.

Well that's all the more reason why the info should be released.

I don't think certain governments are that arsed to ban them tbh.
 
Clearly its a synthetic CB agonist, be it partial or full we do not know. Instead of trying to pin down specifics maybe we can start to speculate the possible side effects of strong cannabinoid agonism. Is there any possibility of long term morphological change at the binding site, if it is a full agonist are overdoses a possibility (probably yes), have users suffered any forms of psychological disorders post use, does it cause HPPD symptoms, etc... This is more useful than the name of some obscure chem with no documented human use.

I think it was hammilton that said spice caused hits of nitrous to last for like 10 minutes. Info like this is useful in compiling an effects database (and it sounds fucking rad).
 
Furious George said:
If I told you exactly what was in them all right now, you'd still be none the wiser. The names would mean nothing to you. You would find no literature or studies relating to them.

If they don't trust that what is written on the pack is what's inside, every customer has the right not to buy it. Coca-Cola don't tell us what's in their product "Vegetable extracts" is what they say.

Making this information public will do nothing but hurry the ban along.

So you've not only found a novel chem, but you've managed to find it without any prior research done?

bullshit.

I might believe it if you said that you wouldn't find anything about that exact chem (perhaps a minor reference in a larger paper), but to claim that it represents a class entirely unknown in the literature is absolutely bullshit.

It's lies to obfuscate the fact that you're spreading a chem and not telling anyone what it is. You could be causing cancer or be selling a horrible teratogenic drug a la thalidomide, or something that is likely to cause anaphalaxis- and if any of these people need medical attention they have fucking clue what to say they've taken.

It's profiteering on the those who desire to abide by the law, plain and simple.
 
As an aside to the identity of the chem, I wanted to offer some brief commentary on the whole chem identity dissemination point: this is always an issue i've been quite torn over. One one hand you have the want to reveal what it is so consumers can know what they are using (full informed consent), but on the other you have the want to keep it secret to lower the chances it will be seized upon by overzealous law enforcement and lawmakers. The question is really: does the harm of keeping it secret exceed the harm of it getting banned? (so people may have to use a potentially more harmful - in terms of toxicity - illegal drug, or the harm arising from the illegality of said drug ie. arrests, incaceration and so on)
 
uh, the lack of revelation is not about 'seizure', c'mon, it is about proprietary secrecy for maximal profit-- don't give me a second of BS that it is about anything otherwise as it is pure BS

if it is endogenous trust me they will not run to do anything here -- but it is likely not as why it is not revealed is two-fold above simply to maintain the compound as exclusive, it is synthetic and thus truly gray, and thus best kept quietly masked under the auspicies of a BS 'novel and unknown' endogenous naturally occurring compound

if anyone thinks otherwise they are, well, just not thinking -- are you really that naive to the way the world works and how 98% of such people are

oh, we keep it hidden so it is in your best interest so it is around longer...yeah, and btw, i hold the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and can offer a real good deal so LMK on thay, OK...

if the government wants to they can close these guys down right now in a matter of seconds as trust what they are doing is not squarely within the laws and regulations and government can more than do what it pleases here is it so chooses...keeping the compound hidden serves no purpose if it was endogenous other than for maximal profiteering as its revelation would in no way hasten any governmental action -- you think if they cared they do not have the capacity to within days know what is in this stuff...???!!!

puuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhllleeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzzzze

you want the truth...there it is
 
The other thing is, if the aim of keeping these compounds secret is to make it harder for the government to ban them so they stay on the market longer, this would not be effective in the long term anyway, because instead of having each compound looked at individually and assessed for whether it is harmful enough to be banned, this kind of secrecy makes it more likely that they will just pass broad laws banning any kind of "unauthorised pharmaceutical product".

Would be pretty easy to do, the existing legislation in most countries has a definitions section in the Medicines Act or equivalent that defines any compound that for instance

"Otherwise prevent or interfer[es] with the normal operation of a physiological function, whether permanently or temporarily, and whether by way of terminating or reducing or postponing, or increasing or accelerating, the operation of that function, or in any other way"

as falling under the definition of a medicine, and so in theory it wouldn't even take statutory change, just a case law precedent that decides that any random compound being sold to the public can be shown to be "interfering with a physiological function" and hence should be considered an unlicensed medicine and banned on that basis.

Such a broad precedent as this would create various problems (mainly with the legitimate dietary supplement industry) and so a court would be unlikely to take the initiative themselves, but it would be very easy for a legislature to do so because they wouldn't even have to change the law, just reinterpret it, and in my opinion the most likely reason for them doing this will be the current proliferation of supposedly legal consumer products containing all manner of research chemicals without saying what the ingredients are on the bottle.

The current situation is no better than with the "patent medicines" back in the 1890s, in fact the parallels are rather close, and the problems that resulted from unregulated sale of pharmaceutical products back then are one of the main reasons that led to the ridiculously strict medicines regulations and drug laws we have now days.
 
Top