• CD Moderators: someguyontheinternet
  • Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

[MEGA] JWH-018 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do not know the legitimacy of this blog and I cannot read German. If it is really him, it seems odd he wouldn't at least mention epoxides, naphthalene etc as a possibility, if it is so easy to determine from the structure.
Click to expand...

Hey unregistred1911,

I am the owner of the blog you mentioned and I can assure you, that email is what J.W. Huffman answered when I asked about long term effects. i could imagine that as an active scientist he is quite careful in what he says. So he just said that there are no effects he knows about cos they have never been investigated. I would assume he could think of possible risks, maybe even the ones you speak about, but didn't mention it cos there is no proof, yet.

When I asked for his permission to make his email available on my blog he agreed and wanted me to "emphasize that there are no toxicology data for this compound".

If you have further questions about posts on my blog regarding "Spice" or "JWH-018" feel free to ask.

Pierre!
 
JWh-018

Hammilton: Could you post a link to documents describing its appearance or tell me how you came to this conclusion? Several people had posted documents that were supposed to describe JWH-018, but after looking through them they didn't. I've ordered some from one place and I'd like to know myself what it is supposed to look like.

Pierre: Could you ask him for an opinion about the theories here (emphasizing opinion)? Anything he could say would be helpful (or maybe even ask him if he could refer us to some documents about JWH-018 that have the appearance?) That would at least put the appearance thing to rest and it'd be better hearing everything "from the horse's mouth" so to speak.
Nice blog by the way. It almost makes me wish I had gone past German 2, but even then I probably wouldn't understand it. :P

Please put this here:
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=407913&page=6

Thanks!
 
@Unregistred1911:

Thank you. Try using Google Translate, not always the best translation but better than nothing.

I will prepare another email and send it sunday or monday. If there is an answer I will post it on my blog and of course leave a message here as well.

Pierre
 
@Unregistred1911:

I just send an email to Prof. Huffman. I especially asked about the actual appearance of pure JWH-018 and possible health risks he would be willing to make an educated guess on.

As soon as I get an answer (which he allows me to make public) I'll post more information.

Greetings, Pierre!
 
pure material is white...EOD...with impurity it takes on degrees of yellow tint...almost no material will be true white as even slight impurities impart a mild light yellow hue
with high impurity it takes on orangish hues, still higher impurities will yield a darker orange/red-brown coloration

Huffman is not a toxicology expert so how would he have any better ideas than some here who probably have a background to make said hypothetical potentials better versed than he in such...whatever his response is it is no more than one more opinion and at this stage relatively meaningless

due a tox or move on....
 
Unregistered1911 said:
Hammilton: Could you post a link to documents describing its appearance or tell me how you came to this conclusion? Several people had posted documents that were supposed to describe JWH-018, but after looking through them they didn't. I've ordered some from one place and I'd like to know myself what it is supposed to look like.
Click to expand...
This request was directed towards Hammilton but I'd like to provide an answer here:
The peer review journals indeed do not mention the colour of most synthesized AAIs. But there's still good evidence that WHITE is the expected coloration for pure, simple AAIs ('simple' with the meaning as 'being low-substituted'): I've seen several pictures of the well known impure JWH-018 that is mostly discussed at the moment; it was brown to dark orange as we all saw. A friend provided me with a sample, which already had a light-yellow tone and no sticky consistency anymore; HPLC provided 98.5% purity. At the dark side a member posted a picture that shows some light-orange product which was obtained after a recrystallisation-step.
Conclusion: If the 'real' colour of that compound would indeed be orange, we would not expect to see an alteration in appearance upon performing purification procedures. But because we actually SEE this stepwise 'lightening up' of the substance, white (or at the most a light-yellow) must be the only option!

Some indirect evidence stems from a personal message that I received from a friend who has access to authentic (!) samples of some AAIs used in academic research. The only difference between said compound and JWH-018 is in the alkyl-chain at the indole-nitrogen. Theory tells us that alkyls do only have a weak +I-effect and do not provide further π-electrons to the mesomeric system. Therefore, the difference in colour between such derivatives would be quite a small one. Or in other words: If the sole difference is in the length resp. kind of the alkyl-sidechain but without changing its position at the ring, then the absorption maximum will be shifted only about some nm, if at all significantly. Thus, the perceived color is (almost) identical. The other AAI in question is JWH-200 (a list with lots of strutures for the JWH-designation system was posted recently here in ADD).

IMO, all speaks for a colourless compound, so this CAN'T REALLY BE THE QUESTION!!!

I have to say that I'm a bit sad about the ignorance with which some of the presented arguments (and not only mine!) are faced with. I feel the strong will to totally disapprove what was said by folks here and in other boards as well. Not by all of course, but still enough. Why is this so? These our voices of warning come in fact mosly from people who honestly appreciate those substances. This said, I can not believe why 'bias' is an often mentioned prejudice. What has to be done that an attempt to teach people about the risks of some drugs finally gains weight?

I have to insist: The appeasers did not present any conclusive data to back up their critics. That's just not how a scientific discussion is though to be led...

- Murphy
 
Last edited:
Amalgam said:
Thank you for the fast reply.


Could you tell me where to find those results? I only knew the JWH-015 paper by Zhang et al., which does not list any epoxide intermediaries AFAIK.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't read the paper then. Surely you're not basing this assumption on what's contained in a short abstract? Get the paper, read it, then you'd already know that they are mentioned.


^ And I agree with Murphy. All of us who have done anything to make the public more aware of the potential dangers of JWH-018 have been criticized for being biased. It's a little hilarious, I think, since AFAIK, all of us have tried the drug and found it to be VERY good. What we don't like is the hiding of the potentially dangerous metabolites, the impure product being sold as pure, and really impure product being sold as an herbal mixture(!)- If all of those things were made clear, then we'd have no reason to say anything on the issue.

Th
 
Jwh-018

I didn't mean to cause offense about this. I simply wanted to provide the COA that several people had asked to see (on other forums, mainly). I believe it was asked for on here somewhere also. I thought it might be of some use here.

Hammilton: No I did not read that paper. That wasn't the one I was referring to. I was referring to "Structure–activity relationships for 1-alkyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indoles at the cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors" and a few other papers that several people had claimed had the information. None of them did. A quick search for "Jwh-018" and "1-Pentyl-3-(1-Naphthoyl)Indole" came back with nothing from that document also ("JWH-015 paper by Zhang et al") I'm concerned about the appearance (mainly) of JWH-018, not the metabolites as there aren't any studies out yet that I know of.

MurphyClox : Thank you for explaining your reasoning (really!). Here are some questions:

Why would the company that supplies this (not the well known vendor but the one that provided the COA) not just do a simple recrystallization rather then go to the trouble of faking a COA and potentially losing customers after this came to light? It just doesn't make much sense to me.

It could very well be yellow, maybe even at 99%. The document above mentions at least one that is a yellow oil. If that's the case, couldn't it be the color that it is at 95%-98% (it is a yellowish-light orange color after powdering, I do know that based on my sample from the well known vendor)?

Can you provide the HPLC? The reason I guess I sound a little stand off-ish is because all the "proof" other people have provided is worthless as far as I can tell. I emailed several people about an HPLC/COA that they said they had. None of them could/would provide it.

About the other:
I somewhat take offense to the ignorance comment. I've only provided documents and References and asked questions. I'm not a chemistry buff, nor do I claim to be, so I am very ignorant in that respect, but at least I say what I KNOW to be true, or at least try to. The whole issue seems a bit odd. This substance was around for months on various forums and no one noticed the whole naphthalene and metabolite issue. I've seen it preached as gospel some places based on virtually nothing (some even reference docs that don't even mention the chemical in question) I know people who have smoked Spice for 1-2 years with no noticeable problems (the equivalent to probably a million cigarettes if you go by the 1000 cigarettes theory). It could all turn out to be true. Who knows? It seems whenever you ask questions or post something that doesn't come into agreement with the "it'll kill you instantly" theory you get shot down. I just had some questions as to why it was this way, and I wanted to contribute the COA from the company that provided it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pierre: Thanks for doing that. I hope he replies and he'll let you post it on your blog. I'd really like to hear what he has to say. If he says it could be very risky or that it shouldn't be the yellow-orange color I think I'll get rid of mine.

You can put this here:

http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=407913&page=6

Thanks!
 
nice thread, I've learned alot. one question though. i'm wondering if the stuff that is supposed to change my bonsai into a redwood tree is the bogus stuff that has been mentioned. thanks for any input.
 
Hammilton: No I did not read that paper. That wasn't the one I was referring to. I was referring to "Structure–activity relationships for 1-alkyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indoles at the cannabinoid CB1 and CB2 receptors" and a few other papers that several people had claimed had the information. None of them did. A quick search for "Jwh-018" and "1-Pentyl-3-(1-Naphthoyl)Indole" came back with nothing from that document also ("JWH-015 paper by Zhang et al") I'm concerned about the appearance (mainly) of JWH-018, not the metabolites as there aren't any studies out yet that I know of.
Click to expand...

Wasn't responding to you, as you can see who I've quoted.
 
@unregistred1911 @all

I just got an answer from Prof. Huffman, that's what he said:


Mr. Markuse,

I will attempt to answer your questions:

1) Pure JWH-018 is a VERY pale amber gum.

2) I have absolutely no idea about the toxicity of JWH-018 nor of its long term effects. It has only been evaluated for cannabinoid activity in mice.

I certainly don’t mind answering questions regarding JWH-018.

John Huffman
Click to expand...


A german tranlation is available on my blog.

I did tell him an educated guess regarding health risks would be appreciated, but as I expected he didn't speculate and stuck to the facts given in his answer 2.

Greetings,

Pierre!
 
Was his answer to the first question referring to the base of JWH-018 or one of its salts?
 
the jwh-018 i've seen is bright yellow crystalline. The jwh-073 I've seen is tan small powdery flecks, looks almost like an artificially flavored whey protein.
 
@invert

My question was: What does pure JWH-018 look like?

About the color: VERY pale amber might be seen by others as bright yellow. So I would assume JWH-018 is indeed almost white with a yellow/amber touch if it is pure.
 
PURE WHITE seems to be the answer were it 100% pure, but that's unlikely to occur, so it ranges generally from almost white to yellow. I would purify yellow crap further, but ymmv
 
I agree with Hammilton. Maybe pure JWH-018 is indeed white, but even industrial-grade is not 100% pure. So even that might appear pale amber/yellow.
 
I don't know what industrial grade is. I think we should be looking for pharmaceutical grade, at least 99.5% pure.
 
Hi Bluelighters,

I have returned with the jwh-018 tox report ready to post, however I'm not able to add an attachment files. Could a mod please bump up my account attachments status so I may post it?

Thanks
 
Post it at blacklight.in and I can post it here for you, I doubt they'll upgrade your account for that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top