• 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

JWH analogs?

nuke said:
None. JWH chemicals were emergency scheduled to schedule I, so the analogues are covered too.

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr112410.html
Click to expand...

But what about this...here.

Apparently we have some more time but the DEA has released a statement pointing people here to check on legality and in the 'in focus' section it should show "fake pot" as their top priority right now.

The question of which will be legal is kind of a bad question. .Some analogues are still going to fall into that grey area that a lot of other compounds do. So maybe not legal but certainly not illegal either.
 
Last edited:
They are all legal until they actually get around to scheduling the 5 they said they were going to schedule. After those 5 are scheduled, some other ones might be considered analogues. However, analogues are only illegal if sold for human consumption. Also, some of them, such as JWH-250, have quite different structures than the substances targeted in the ban, so they probably wouldn't be analogues at all.
 
killermunchies said:
They are all legal until they actually get around to scheduling the 5 they said they were going to schedule. After those 5 are scheduled, some other ones might be considered analogues. However, analogues are only illegal if sold for human consumption. Also, some of them, such as JWH-250, have quite different structures than the substances targeted in the ban, so they probably wouldn't be analogues at all.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that
 
Good luck with that
Click to expand...

IMO there is a high potential that many others would not be considered analogues, as the typical cannabinoids set to be listed are all naphthiylindoles, and there are many other cannabinoids out there.
Of course, it all depends exactly what the DEA class as an analogue, which is very vague, but there are many out there.
 
The real question you should be asking is if you have enough money to buy lawyers and expert witnesses to counter the arguments of the DEA's lawyers and expert witnesses in a jury of your peers, not about the vague wording of the law itself, since it's just that. The US has a history of having a highly interpretive legal system.
 
nuke said:
The real question you should be asking is if you have enough money to buy lawyers and expert witnesses to counter the arguments of the DEA's lawyers and expert witnesses in a jury of your peers, not about the vague wording of the law itself, since it's just that. The US has a history of having a highly interpretive legal system.
Click to expand...

^^^ Exactly this. The laws are open to interpretation, and very rarely is that in your favor. I have a hard time believing after all the hype and hoopla surrounding "synthetic marijuana" in the U.S. that anyone will be satisfied with "Oh, wait, JWH-250 doesn't have the napthalene ring, so its legal".
 
Jwh

I not to inclined to ever try any of these as the are sold as incense in Co where I live. 1. Do they actually get you high and 2. if sold as incense with the new law would the still be a schedule drug?
 
^^^Yes, they absolutely get you high. Analog laws only apply if something is intended for human consumption, whether "incense" qualifies is a matter for a jury. But that's really something vendors need worry about more than customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top