JWH-018 and JWH-073

[musicman65]

Okay not 100% sure if this is in the proper forum, but it's still pretty advanced. I've been getting spice/k2 tested by redwood toxicology and had a negative result. Two weeks later, I had another test which resulted positive for JWH-018 and/or JWH-073. After calling redwood they reported that in the last month they have expanded which metabolites can be tested for, which now includes JWH-250, JWH-081, AM-2201, and RCS-4. However, the report resulted with me testing positive for JWH-018/JWH-073, both of which have been illegal in Indiana since March of 2011. My question is in anyway is it possible that something caused me to show a false positive for JWH-018 or JWH-073 metabolites, which after researching *I THINK* are indole-N-desalkyl metabolite as well as several hydroxylated metabolites in urine. Any information would be greatly helpful as this is determining the rest of my life.
/edit- jwh-018= (1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole) and jwh-073=naphthalen-1-yl-(1-butylindol-3-yl)methanone

 

[Sturnam]

Well, first of all you didn't tell us whether or not you have smoked any synthetic cannabinoid recently. Have you? Maybe whatever you used has a common metabolite with JWH-018/073, or any of the others they just added (JWH-250/081, AM-2201, and RCS-4).

Second, they usually confirm drug tests with a GC/MS, which is (mostly) definitive of presence of said metabolites. Looking on their website, it says they do LC/MS. So, I think it's pretty strong on their part, unless you can find something that would have a common metabolite, and then prove that to them. But, that would not be an easy or quick task.

 

[musicman65]

No I have not smoked any synthetic cannabinoid since November 18th, so it doesn't make sense how i had a positive test. I need to figure this all out before court on the 17th. If you could help explain this to me a little better I would be glad to send cash over paypal.. just sold an iphone 4s on ebay so I have paypal

 

[nuke]

It's probably reasonable to assume that these JWH compounds, being extremely lipophilic, may accumulate in adipose tissue like THC. I looked around for pharmacokinetics data that indicated the persistence of the compound in mammals but couldn't find a lot; the closest thing was this preliminary study of JWH-018 in rats.

emtlife.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=760&d=1302402688

Note that two of the three rats here died from exposure. This would put the LD50 for JWH-018 in rats somewhere less than 5mg/kg, compared to 1,270 mg/kg for THC. Likely, JWH-018 would never have passed through the FDA for the insanely elevated therapeutic:lethal dosage ratio. The other interesting thing to see is that at 24 hours later, the surviving rat still had a measureable quantity of the parent compound present in plasma (to say nothing of the metabolites).

 

[musicman65]

ok im not sure if this makes sense or something but i have came to this conclusion:
dextromethorphan as we all know is one of the substances in dayquil/nyquil. according to agilent some chem company: Subjects are typically “poor metabolizers” with large amounts of unmodified dextromethorphan being excreted in the urine, or “extensive metabolizers” who excrete the drug primarily in the form of two glucuronide conjugates with essentially no unmodified dextromethorphan present

and wikipedia on JWH-018:
A lesser metabolite monohydroxylated on the omega (terminal) position was present in the urine of 6 users of the drug at concentrations of 6-50 μg/L, primarily as a glucuronide conjugate.


could the dextromethorphan cause the glucuronide conjugates in urine to be mistaken as JWH-18 conjugates instead of DXM

 

[musicman65]

can anyone tell me if the above is possible? I need as much information as possible.

 

[nuke]

could the dextromethorphan cause the glucuronide conjugates in urine to be mistaken as JWH-18 conjugates instead of DXM

Unlikely, on GC/MS or LC/MS the fragmentation patterns should be completely different for the metabolites of the two compounds

You should find out the results from the company themselves (they should have the MS data if that's what they're basing their results on), the fragmentation data for many of these synthetic cannabinoids and their metabolites can now easily be found in the literature

 

[musicman65]

Hmm.. Well I guess it has to be a residual result.. Or the fact that they now test for 4 more metabolites than they did on my first test. It sucks that there isn't enough studies that I can cite to support my case when i go to court.

 

[flaming]

What jurisdiction are you in that they would be testing you for very-recently-scheduled compounds? I haven't heard of such a restriction ever being imposed anywhere in the US.

 

[musicman65]

Spice related charge during juvenile probation. every two weeks i get tested and it's sent to redwood laboratory.. right now things aren't looking to well. the time i actually dont do something, everything comes back at me.

 

[Sturnam]

Was November 18th when you got caught the first time? Have you tested negative since then until recently?

I would say that nuke might be right about bioaccumulation in fatty tissues, but that doesn't exactly explain why you have tested negative until now. Have you exercised more than usual or lost weight recently? Maybe stimulation of fat cells by other means caused release of the stored JWH-018?

Lastly, it's definitely not the dextromethorphan or glucuronide conjugate of anything else. Glucuronidation is an extremely common way to excrete drugs of all different classes. They're not looking for that.


P.S. On Redwood's site it says that usual detection is 72 hours, but chronic can be detected even longer. However, they did not have on their website what time span "longer" was.

 

[musicman65]

I was on probation back on the 18th, tested negative on the 6th, then tested positive on the 20th. Dont forget that they expanded the metabolites that they test for between these dates, is what they told me over the phone, although the website says this was updated on November 22nd. I got ahold of John W Huffman, yes, the creator of JWH, and he said that he has heard of false positives, yet isn't sure of the exact cause and recommended a good lawyer was all i can do. I had been skiing for nearly the whole weekend before the positive test, so maybe the exercise burned some of the fat cells releasing the JWH?

 

[mad_scientist]

I had been skiing for nearly the whole weekend before the positive test, so maybe the exercise burned some of the fat cells releasing the JWH?

This is actually entirely plausible, I've certainly heard of similar things with fat soluble benzodiazepines. I would also advise getting a good lawyer if it comes to that, you could have a valid defense.

 

[musicman65]

Thanks for all the help guys.. Just needing as much evidence as I can get before court. Probably going to take a polygraph as well. $550 dollars though ):

 

[skillet]

I got ahold of John W Huffman

Haha cool

Can you ask them exactly what they found? I don't know if they'll tell you but knowing what metabolites they saw would help figure out if it's definitive proof that you took an illegal drug. I really doubt it is, that they lump 18 and 73 together suggests maybe they don't see the N-alkyl group, and there are lots of possible variations there that shouldn't be illegal.

What are the urine cutoff levels?
There are no cut-off levels for RTL’s Urine Synthetic Cannabinoid Test. Toxi-cology result reporting will indicate either “Detected” or “Not Detected.”

Hmm, hope they run a blank and repeat to confirm positives.

 

[Sturnam]

Thanks for all the help guys.. Just needing as much evidence as I can get before court. Probably going to take a polygraph as well. $550 dollars though ):

I would save your money. Polygraphs shouldn't be admissible in court (or at least any good court). The US Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that

There is simply no consensus that polygraph evidence is reliable

and

Unlike other expert witnesses who testify about factual matters outside the jurors' knowledge, such as the analysis of fingerprints, ballistics, or DNA found at a crime scene, a polygraph expert can supply the jury only with another opinion...

The case was United States v. Scheffer, if you're interested

 

[musicman65]

Haha cool

Can you ask them exactly what they found? I don't know if they'll tell you but knowing what metabolites they saw would help figure out if it's definitive proof that you took an illegal drug. I really doubt it is, that they lump 18 and 73 together suggests maybe they don't see the N-alkyl group, and there are lots of possible variations there that shouldn't be illegal.



Hmm, hope they run a blank and repeat to confirm positives.

Ill be sure to ask, however, any mind-altering substances, whether legal or illegal, violate my probation, even though i've used neither. And sturnam, Ill be sure to talk with my attorney to get his opinion before throwing out that money, but after talking to a few polygraph examiners some said that they will help and others said they won't. Might be worth it, might not.

 

[skillet]

Geez, can you smoke a cig? Drink a coffee/cola?

If they can't prove what it is, they'd have a really hard time proving it's 'mind-altering.' Not sure it would matter if they can just say it could be reasonably expected to be psychoactive, but that's hardly conclusive evidence you altered your mind by consumption of psychoactive drugs, while being forbidden from doing so.

 

[musicman65]

Im pretty sure spice/k2/etc are included on the rules of probation. It's just stupid i failed for the type of spice not even available anymore, well the chemical atleast. (JWH 018)

 

[skillet]

It sucks that there isn't enough studies that I can cite to support my case when i go to court.

I can't see that they have much to support their case either.

How long can synthetic cannabinoids be detected in urine?
Following a single low dose exposure, synthetic cannabinoids can be detected up to 72 hours in human urine. In case of chronic exposure the window of detection is much longer.

How much longer, have they investigated how metabolite concentrations drop over time after different levels of exposure? Confounding factors, like others mentioned? I don't think so. Even if they did, you could always have used more than the upper limit in their investigation.

I don't see how this proves anything other than that, at some point, you were likely exposed to JWH-018 or an analog.