• 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

Legality of THC-Analogues

Ham-milton

Ham-milton

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
5,738
I realize that this might belong better in Legal Discussion, but I need an answer from someone knowledgable about the analogue act AND the chemistry.

Anyway, my question is this: Since synthetic THC is considered a CIII, are synthetically produced analogues of THC legally outside of the analogue act?

Thanks,

Ham-milton
 
This is interesting.


Looking at the law this means the analogues would be legal.


But then again marijuana is sched. 1 so I don't know. But like you said thc is sched 3.


The U.S. really needs to get its shit together when defining laws. I don't even know how you can have a drug IN 2 DIFFERENT SCHEDULES WTF.
 
Synthetic THC might be CIII, but parahexyl is CI, and the CI list also includes

(30) Tetrahydrocannabinols 7370
Meaning tetrahydrocannabinols naturally contained in a plant of the genus Cannabis (cannabis plant), as well as synthetic equivalents of the substances contained in the cannabis plant, or in the resinous extractives of such plant, and/or synthetic substances, derivatives, and their isomers with similar chemical structure and pharmacological activity to those substances contained in the plant, such as the following:

-1 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers
-6 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and their optical isomers
-3,4 cis or trans tetrahydrocannabinol, and its optical isomers

(Since nomenclature of these substances is not internationally standardized, compounds of these structures, regardless of numerical designation of atomic positions covered.)
Click to expand...

So I'd say most direct derivatives of THC would be considered analogues, like HU210 for instance.

CP55940 might be structurally distinct enough not to be covered though, and WIN55212-2 definitely would, just a pity CP55940 is so unstable and WIN55212-2 is so damn hard to make...there are a few other less well known CB1 agonists which might be easier though.
 
The reason I'm asking is because there have been rumors that the legal highs product "Spice Gold" contains a synthetic cannabinoid- since everyone who tries it reports damn near the exact same thing- a very cannabis like high, more stoney, less psychedelic, munchies, dry mouth, red eye that's strong for about 1.5-2 hours then tapering off over- get this- 6-6.5 hours.

It's a smokable that has the typical listed ingredients of any legal high- the only difference is that this one works. It wouldn't be the first time they put 'real drugs' in an herbal.

I'd like get the chance to test it so I can see what it really contains, so hopefully they'll be good and send me a the 1-3 grams I requested for free.

I kinda wonder if they haven't extracted myristicine (sp?) from nutmeg and added it back on to the other materials. I kinda doubt it'd be active smoked, but who knows, I doubt anyone has (knowingly) tried.


EDIT: For another quick question- say someone was drunk and decided to soak their weed in rubbing alcohol, planning on extracting the oil but mixed up and grabbed a bottle of hydrogen peroxide? Theoretically... course (no it really wasn't me, but that's all I can say, ha). Any risk of it reacting with any of the cannabinoids present? It wasn't common house-hold hydrogen peroxide, it was a bit stronger than that used for cleaning, but still rather weak.
 
Last edited:
Depends what you mean by "analogue of THC".
If you mean that in a literal sense, then yeah Iexpect they will be treated as what they are. (as in, if you make derivatives that have the 3-ring system of THC, with the long alkyl chain etc)

But there are plenty of other structures that may be great CB1 agonists. Way more structural diversity than at any other common receptor, actually. most of the other receptors seem to have quite strict requirements. Cannabinoid ones don't seem to, have a look at WIN 55,212-2 for example!
Lots of potential here.

Take a look at (1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(naphthalen-2-yl)methanone , it's an aminoalkylindole. EC50 for it is pretty much equivalent to d-9-THC. Shouldn't be too difficult to make from indole, either.
 
MattPsy said:
Depends what you mean by "analogue of THC".
If you mean that in a literal sense, then yeah Iexpect they will be treated as what they are. (as in, if you make derivatives that have the 3-ring system of THC, with the long alkyl chain etc)

But there are plenty of other structures that may be great CB1 agonists. Way more structural diversity than at any other common receptor, actually. most of the other receptors seem to have quite strict requirements. Cannabinoid ones don't seem to, have a look at WIN 55,212-2 for example!
Lots of potential here.

Take a look at (1-(2-morpholinoethyl)-1H-indol-3-yl)(naphthalen-2-yl)methanone , it's an aminoalkylindole. EC50 for it is pretty much equivalent to d-9-THC. Shouldn't be too difficult to make from indole, either.
Click to expand...

the thing to remember is that it is very likely the alkylindole and alkylpyrolles bind in a different part of the cleft to the benzopyran THC type ligands. some evidence points to the alkylindoles binding further up the cleft in a more hydrophillic environment.

there are some interesting developments with CB receptor studies, I think I saw an abstract of a recent paper indicating that there were more subtypes of the receptor than was originally thought, also there is evidnce for an allosteric site on CB-1 which leads to a whole new area to explore.
 
THC analogues are next in line to be the drugs of the future.
We need to speed people! SNELL !!! SNELL !!!

i'm going to escape this box for a while now as it's moving and i keep thinking i'm living in a constant dé ja voús ..... . . . .


.
.
.
.
...
.
..
.........
. 3 . 2 . 1 ..... O~*
 
In the UK, other controlled thc analouges are ones in which the 5-pentyl group attached to the phenyl ring is replaced by another alkyl group such as hexyl (synhexyl), dimethylheptyl or anything with the formula CnH2n+1.

Anything else that goes for the CB1 receptor is uncontrolled AFAIK


Er, that's for the UK & Eire, dunno about elsewhere
 
vecktor: Yeah totally, I understand that it's thought the binding cleft is large and there are lots of different places to have things bind.
Wasn't aware of that new research you speak of though, do you happen to remember the title of it :) ? (otherwise, I shall just keep a look out for it)
So in that context: I tried WIN 55,212-2 (insufflated ~3mg) and I thought it was fucking awesome, haha. Like the head-feeling of cannabis without any feeling of heaviness in the body. And my favorite part - it made my vision go SUPER bright. Like "i've taken some good acid but i'm not seeing any patterns" type bright. A++ would trade again.
So, if this AII comes close to what that felt like, i'm pretty keen to eat it ;p .
 
That, naphthoylindole cannabinoid you speak of, Is deadly. It has literely reduced some people to tears. The tiniest amount, in a pipe, like 4 - 10 mg is a heavy high to say the least. It proper fucks you up. It does however feel very clean but that does not make you feel much better when you are under the influence. Most hardend smokers would not try it a second time although you do get the odd brave one. It is truly amazing but watch out.
I did feel really stoned still the next day for about half the day.
 
gabbachris: Which one are you referrring to? The one I mentioned or fast'n'bulby's one?
F&B: Hehe, that's pretty sweet! I like these CB agonists... :) . Very diverse.
 
Sounds like we have a winner. I've always wanted to try a synthetic cannabinoid--as a chemistry geek, I believe that nature can always be improved upon. The WIN55 agonist sounds amazing from the tiny amount of information provided. I personally would be interested in the most "psychedelic" cannabinoid (if cannabinoids can even be considered 'psychedelic') with the least amount of "stoning" sedative effects.
 
I have heard of and looked at the ingredients of "spice gold"

My hypothesis is that the "high" comes mainly from the "mad dog dessert scullcap" (sculletaria nana) aka dwarf scullcap.

Granted I have no experience with sculletaria nana or many of the other ingredients. With that in mind, my comment should have no bearing, it's just a thought.

However, I once was reading a txt file about smoking blends that North American Indians traditionally smoked. This file was not trying to sell anything. It did, however tell of the legendary scullcap. Now, there are three species of scullcap that are mentioned, each one more potent than the next. Sculletaria Lateriflora is said to be weak and almost unnoticeable. There is one intermediate (said to be like normal pot, ie. schwag); and the most potent is said to be called mad dog dessert scullcap (sculletaria nana), which is supposed to have effects similar to KB.

I have seen many sites selling "mad dog dessert scullcap" which in actuality turns out to be Sculletaria Lateriflora.

Anyway, I have no experience with these, so I shouldn't be considered a knowledgeable source.

My point with this post is that I would be highly interested in reading a Trip Report on Sculletaria nana.
 
capital said:
I have heard of and looked at the ingredients of "spice gold"

My hypothesis is that the "high" comes mainly from the "mad dog dessert scullcap" (sculletaria nana) aka dwarf scullcap.

My point with this post is that I would be highly interested in reading a Trip Report on Sculletaria nana.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't count on spice containing _any_ of the ingredients listed on the packet there is a distinct lack of the terpines and other aromatics characteristic of some of the ingredients.
so until it is known what it contains it is all pointless speculation.
 
Thanks Matt, sounds good!

F&B do you know if the alternate CB1 agonist you drew is active, would be a piece of piss to make.

Edit: Just saw you said naphthoylindole cannabinoid not WIN-xxxx. Yeah that must be so easy to make!
 
Last edited:
Yeah Gabbachris, which, as they i think are identical except one has a morpolino group and the other an extended chain

I assume perhaps you refer to the one Matt alludes to as FnB alludes to his not nearly being so over the top...though maybe you guys just used too high a dose?

FnB what was your dose and route of administration?

also if even 4mg smoked was F'ing you guys up why not simply go with a lower dose the next go round?...or was this tried?
 
dorothyperkins said:
Edit: Just saw you said naphthoylindole cannabinoid not WIN-xxxx. Yeah that must be so easy to make!
Click to expand...

you would be suprised to learn that it isn't. acylation of the 3 position is un-natural in indole, along with the friedel crafts catalyst co-orinating with the nitrogen..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top