Faxeladol

[Holy_cow]

I'm not so sure that these wouldn't be considered analogues. They bear striking similarities to the Ampromides and, to a lesser extent, moramides.

You are talking nonsense. Just look up the structure of flaxeladol on Wikipedia and and compare it with ampromides and moramides. There is absolutely no similarity. Flaxeladol is in the worst case an analog of tramadol, which is not sheduled. Same applied to raceflaxeladol.

 

[haribo1]

Can anyone suggest a way of replacing the bare -OH on tramadol for an F? Holy Cow posted a SAR list and the F analogs were the most potent. Also, you could then simply remove the methyl ether since there wouldn't be a tertiary -OH to dehydrate...

I am USELESS at fluorine chemistry...

Then again, the flaxeladol itself is VERY potent. So:-

-Reflux in HBr to remove methyl ether (also dehydrates alcohol)
-Reduce

Voila, flaxeladol from tramadol in 2 steps. Looks about as potent as morphine. I'm betting that acetylation would make it more potent and smokable...

Of course, Legal where there are no CsA laws...

 

[Holy_cow]

Without wanting to get into prohibited synthesis discussion: to make the fluoro compound you need dimethylamino-sulfur trifluoride for the fluorination, which is not only rather expensive, but also a quite hazardous and difficult to handle chemical. There are quite a few, some of them rather innovative (not HBr), methods to split the ether, but posting details would be prohibited synthesis discussion. Hint: check patent US5733936.

 

[Holy_cow]

Of course, Legal where there are no CsA laws...

I can't see how CsA laws would affect raceflaxeladol. To which controlled substance is it an analog?

 

[morphiquet]

how would you then call chloro-faxeladol?
claxeladol hahahahaha..... really funny

@haribo: you still didn't answer my question about why you're not thinking the HBr would add to the newly formed double-bond?

 

[Ham-milton]

If you can't see the similarity to dextromoramide, you're not looking very hard.

It's much simplified, but the structural similarities are there.

 

[Holy_cow]

If you can't see the similarity to dextromoramide, you're not looking very hard.

It's much simplified, but the structural similarities are there.

You must have had some Datura tea today to come up with this idea. It might reflect your dreams/hallucinations, but certainly not real chemistry.

 

[Ham-milton]

Huh, so that similarity isn't there?

Chemistry is irrelevant when it comes to prosecution of analogue cases. A federal prosecutor will compare the structures and if he can find enough similarity, he'll prosecute.

These may be entirely unrelated chemically, but that's of no consequence to the prosecutor. The law only says it needs to be "substantially similar" structurally and substantially similar in effect.

I actually left off more similarity than I ought to, I'm missing two carbons they share in common, and while there's a big difference replacing an amine with a carbon, I doubt the prosecutor will care. Then he'll see that they belong to the same effect-class of drug, opioids, binding to the same receptor and any reservations he had are gone.

 

[Holy_cow]

The determination if something is an analog or not is not made by the public prosecutor, but but expert whitnesses, who are scientists, chemists and pharmacologists. And they will tell the court that raceflaxeladol being a chemical analog of dextromoramide is complete and utter nonsense. With your extremely wide and loose interpretation of the CsA law, there is about nothing that's not an analog once it has some psychotropic effect. Since when is chemistry irrelevant for the CsA determination? And I strongly doubt that a federal prosecutor comparing the structures can find enough similarity, or any similarity, to prosecute. Because he's not a wannabe chemist like you, making up wild similarities where there are none, he's a law professoinal relaying on the oppinion of chemistry profesionals who would never make such fools out of themselves to declare raceflaxeladol being a CsA of dextromoramide.

 

[Ham-milton]

The determination if something is an analog or not is not made by the public prosecutor, but but expert whitnesses, who are scientists, chemists and pharmacologists.

This is nonsense. The prosecutor decides whether or not to press charges. He may take these other opinions into consideration, or not. That's his prerogative. The jury takes into consideration the statements made my expert witnesses.

Since when is chemistry irrelevant for the CsA determination?

Since the law was written? Perhaps you'd like to read it

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term controlled substance analogue means a substance -

* (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;
* (ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or
* (iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.

With your extremely wide and loose interpretation of the CsA law, there is about nothing that's not an analog once it has some psychotropic effect.

Not to resort to insane hyperbole...

And I strongly doubt that a federal prosecutor comparing the structures can find enough similarity, or any similarity, to prosecute. Because he's not a wannabe chemist like you, making up wild similarities where there are none, he's a law professoinal relaying on the oppinion of chemistry profesionals who would never make such fools out of themselves to declare raceflaxeladol being a CsA of dextromoramide.

Where the only consideration is the structural similarities and the binding similarities- as the law itself specifies- these similarities are all that matter.

Faxeladol shares what, 80% in common with moramide? Moramide shares less in common with faxeladol, but that seems irrelevant where moramide is what has been scheduled.

 

[Holy_cow]

* (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II;

Why can't you see that raceflaxeladol's chemical structure is not substantially similar to dextromoramide?

You should read up on CsA court cases. There people got away with real close analogs, sometimes isomers/enantiomers, because it says substantially similar, not barely remotely related. Your case is extremely far fetched.

 

[Ham-milton]

The case I'm best aware of, where someone got away with it, was absolutely an analogue and apparently only got away with it because of obfuscation about the ability to synthesize analogue A from scheduled drug B.

But I'm not arguing that you would be successfully prosecuted, or even that you would be prosecuted. I'm arguing that from a rational reading of the law, a strong case can be made for this faxeladol being a LEGAL analogue of moramide.

Why can't you see that raceflaxeladol's chemical structure is not substantially similar to dextromoramide?

Because, as the law is written, it is. It shares roughly 80% of it's structure in common. Unless you hold some secret definition that has not been released to the public, you cannot deny this. Moramide shares much less in common, as I mentioned above, but as the law is written, it does not work this way.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over, but besides random ad hominem's, you've given no reason why it isn't. You keep basing your argument in chemistry, but that's not what the law was written for. It was written to allow the widest coverage possible. It has done this well.

All the drug in question must do is share substantial structural elements in common with the scheduled drug, and bind to the same receptor.

This drugs structure is basically just moramide pared down. Remove the features that aren't essential for opioid activity, and you're there (not exactly, I suspect that ring doesn't need to be closed)

 

[vecktor]

A prosecutor would be better off simply handing the wannabe faxeladol supplier over to grunethals' patent attorneys, neatly packaged on a plate, and a hint that otherwise tramadol and its ilk will have to scheduled, in order to make faxeladol into a csa analog if they don't screw you.

fortunately the US analog laws have proven pretty much unworkable, they were deliberately worded to be vague and ironically this vagueness has been its undoing as shulgin pointed out in pihkal the law has been phrased without any 'and' and 'or' niether and either would be helpful for clarity too, in the paragraph so it can be left to debate what it actually means. its a shabby bit of law.

 

[Holy_cow]

According to EP1928441 flaxeladol is rapidly absorbed, has a quick onset of action, and the main side effects are nausea and vomiting (i.e. the typical side effects of µ-opioids).

Vector: there's a plethora of patent protected pharmaceuticals made on large scale in China. I've never heard of any of the manufacturers being prosecuted for patent infringement. Besides, if the compound is used for research purposes only, patents don't apply. A particular advantage would be to have a non-patented process for the manufacturing, as we have developed (or better are developing it). We don't know yet if this new process will work, and only if it works there is any chance that raceflaxeladol will ever show up on the RC market.

If not, we might go for an advanced ultra-potent opioid, since there are plenty of then (non-CSA) available, while morphine-equivalent compounds are rare and hard to make (especially in the required larger amounts) and mostly CsA.

Btw, ultra-potent harm-reduced µ-opioids can be sold safely if dilluted with an inert material (NaCl, lactose etc.). If it's 1000x as potent as morphine, simply mix 1g of opioid with 999g of dillutent.

 

[vecktor]

According to EP1928441 flaxeladol is rapidly absorbed, has a quick onset of action, and the main side effects are nausea and vomiting (i.e. the typical side effects of µ-opioids).

Vector: there's a plethora of patent protected pharmaceuticals made on large scale in China. I've never heard of any of the manufacturers being prosecuted for patent infringement. Besides, if the compound is used for research purposes only, patents don't apply. A particular advantage would be to have a non-patented process for the manufacturing, as we have developed (or better are developing it). We don't know yet if this new process will work, and only if it works there is any chance that raceflaxeladol will ever show up on the RC market.

wish you luck, the waiver is for non commercial use and its kind of hard to argue selling to people without any research facilities, chemicals for brain research on a profit basis is non commercial.

If not, we might go for an advanced ultra-potent opioid, since there are plenty of then (non-CSA) available, while morphine-equivalent compounds are rare and hard to make (especially in the required larger amounts) and mostly CsA.

Btw, ultra-potent harm-reduced µ-opioids can be sold safely if dilluted with an inert material (NaCl, lactose etc.). If it's 1000x as potent as morphine, simply mix 1g of opioid with 999g of dillutent.

the track record for ultra potent opioid compounds is not very good, fentanyl springs immediately to mind ultra potent = ultra high fuck up potential.