• 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

New Georgia Law takes effect tomorrow

M

Moon Cowboy

Greenlighter
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Messages
15
My fair state of Georgia has passed SB. 93, and from what I've seen it takes effect tomorrow July 1.

The bill adds JWH-200, JWH-250, and JWH-081 to schedule 1, as well as many "bath salt" formulations.

My question pertains to the legality of AM-2201 and JWH-122, as the bill includes wording of homologues and isomers (geometric and functional) BUT not analogues . Would either of these substances be affected by the new law? What other popular compounds would be affected? Three of the federally controlled JWH compounds were banned on a state level previously in another bill.

Thankfully our state laws are not as extensive as poor Kansas or Indiana.
 
Could you give me some reasoning behind this opinion? Here is the counter-argument:


Re: New Georgia Law takes effect tomorrow?
Neither AM-2201 nor JWH-122 are isomers to those substances already on the controlled substances list in any respect (JWH-018, HU-210, CP47,497, JWH-081, JWH-200, JWH-250), so they're fine in that respect.

Homology is a far more vague definition to pin down, but in my opinion neither JWH-122 nor AM-2201 should be considered homologues to their most closely related drugs on the controlled substances list (JWH-081 and JWH-018 respectively). The fluoropentyl group of AM-2201 is analogous but not homologous to the pentyl chain of JWH-018, while the 4-methylnaphthyl moiety of JWH-122 is significantly different from the 4-methoxynaphthyl moiety of JWH-081. Since the wording of the law covers homologues but not analogues I would consider both AM-2201 and JWH-122 to remain uncontrolled, though obviously still not legal to sell for human consumption.

For reference the legislation regarding synthetic cannabinoids in Georgia with the new additions highlighted in bold:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paragraph (12) of Georgia Code Section 16-13-25 (Schedule I controlled substances)

Any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances, their salts, isomers (whether optical, positional, or geometric), homologues, and salts of isomers and homologues, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of these salts, isomers, homologues, and salts of isomers and homologues is possible within the specific chemical designation:

(A) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018);

(B) 1,1-dimethylheptyl-11-hydroxy-delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol (HU-210; (6a, 10a)-9-(hydroxymethyl)-6,6-dimethyl-3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)-6a,7 ,10,10a-tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromen-1-ol);

(C) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)-5-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)phenol (CP 47,497);

(D) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200);

(E) 2-(2-methoxyphenyl)-1-(1-pentylindole-3-yl) ethanone (JWH-250);

(F) 4-methoxynaphthalen-1-yl-(1-pentylindole-3-yl) methanone (JWH-081).

AM-2201 and JWH-122 do not fall under such definitions such they are not simply expansions on the existing molecular structure. AM-2201 incorporates a fluorine residue, while JWH-122 has very different substitutions on the naphthalene ring. Structural analogues of the controlled substances? Almost certainly I would think (though yet to be tested in a courtroom). But not homologues.


What do you think of this argument?
 
you have to wade through the Georgia controlled substances law (whatever they call it) to find their definition of homologue. If they don't define it (and you have a competent lawyer and tens of thousands of dollars) you may be able to beat a homology charge should they decide to enforce it.
 
While you are probably right about the effort and money to take to defend this position, do you agree with the point made at all? What would make these compounds homologs by a standard chemistry position exactly? Does this wording mean all hope is lost in terms of legality with this series of chemicals? Other states have much more extensive wording, though I can see the point that the government can give words a definition other than what they really mean in the field of science.
 
sekio said:
Theyb are homologues because they both are potent CB1/2 agonists.
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a smartass, but by that logic wouldn't St. Johnswaitt and Paxil (Paroxetine) be homologs because they are both SSRI's? I'm not sure homologs are defined by their similar effects?

I just don't know, and am getting differing viewpoints.
 
yea a week or 2 ago there was a law passed here in virginia that made posession of certain "bath salts and cannabinoids" illegal

I'm not sure what the specific chems are, but probably the major ones for sure


*sigh

if they only knew that more and more analogues can be still made and that the law does not solve the problem of prohibition
 
The US's analogue law is written such that nearly anything fun is a potential CS analogue depending on how convincing which lawyers are to which judge. Key exceptions are obvious analogues of schedule 3+ compounds structurally dissimilar from things schedule 2-...

ebola
 
My research indicates that Virginia has enacted a law much more comprehensive than you think, and it specially bans analouges both real and hypothetical.

All homologs are analogs but not the other way around as far as I know.
 
ebola? said:
The US's analogue law is written such that nearly anything fun is a potential CS analogue depending on how convincing which lawyers are to which judge. Key exceptions are obvious analogues of schedule 3+ compounds structurally dissimilar from things schedule 2-...

ebola
Click to expand...

This is very true. However, the Analogs Act is effectively rendered moot when there is no explicit or implied human consumption. States laws, especially those with room for interpretation, have a much greater risk of prosecution and success.
 
I (tentatively) disagree with sekio's interpretation. To wit, the following are proper homologues:

220px-JWH-210_structure.png
JWH-210
280px-JWH-122andJWH-182.png
JWH 122 and 182

they differ by the repetition of one structural unit

also, the law mentions "homologues" and separately it mentions "isomers, geometric and functional". The meaning of "geometric isomers" is plain. "Functional isomers" I'd argue are analogues that differ by one functional unit, not chemicals that effect the same function in the CNS.
 
I'm sure the law misses out on prosecution just because they have common reactions and are in the same "class". This is not the case in a few other states that have very loose and broad wording such as " has an effect on cannabinoind receptors", this wording would make sekio correct.

Point very well illustrated- JWH-122 is a proper, bonafide homolog of JWH-210 and if that compound was listed...well, damn.

I know Wikipedia isn't the best source, I am not a chemist and need laymans terms and illustrations to understand. According to it:

"In simple terms, functional isomers are structural isomers that have different functional groups like alcohol and ether." I am under the belief that this definition would still make the substances uncontrolled. Thoughts?
 
I'm from Canada. Here we have a section in the CDSA that bans "Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar synthetic preparations."

Health Canada thinks the JWH-* are 'similar synthetic preparations'. And in the biological scheme of things, changing a methoxy for a methyl group is doing next to nothing. (at least in these drugs). These are the grounds I have for calling most of the JWH family homologous.

Maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate but this is how I see the law. The intent is to obviously control cannabinoid agonists so I see no reason they'd go to ban all of them.
 
I am mostly unaware of international law, but there are states that have the comprehensive wording similiar to Canada. Am I to believe this law effectively killed the synthetic market in Canada?

The wording of this bill is similar to the DEA legelation on the federal level, this also left out analouges, which is the only conceivable reason AM-2201 became a popular choice. It's a legal analogue of JWH-081. Intentions don't matter in my view, words like analogs and homologs are different words with different meanings for a reason. Only a government could feasibly construe new meanings from scientic words.

I'm new guys, and can't find the ability to inject pictures of the compounds in question and their scheduled "closest" compounds, but of you can and can explain homology from a strictly scientific ( for dummies) point of view, I'd appreciate it. I also already appreciate the feedback and advanced answers for an advanced question.
 
Homologue

The term homologue is used to describe a compound belonging to a series of compounds differing from each other by a repeating unit, such as a methylene group, a peptide residue, etc.
Click to expand...

http://www.chem.qmul.ac.uk/iupac/medchem/ah.html#h5


MC, can you link to where you saw the term "functional isomer"?

look:

(14) "Isomers" means stereoisomers (optical isomers), geometrical isomers, and structural isomers (chain and positional isomers, but shall not include functional isomers).
Click to expand...

http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-13/article-2/16-13-21/

 
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Functional+isomer+

Under the sub-heading " Functional Group Isomerism". This was after I could not find "functional homolog". I think there was some confusion between a functional group in structure and function as in a CB receptor. Seems my
State explicitly excludes these anyway (another argument that analogues are exceptions?)

Some strains are off the table now in this state. JWH-019 is a homolog of JWH-018, extended by only the carbon chain.
 
The law in entirerty is posted above the criteria are as follows:

"Any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of the following substances, their salts, isomers (whether optical, positional, or geometric), homologues, and salts of isomers and homologues, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of these salts, isomers, homologues, and salts of isomers and homologues is possible within the specific chemical designation"

The argument was made that the compounds in question would be illegal because they are similarly structured CB agonists. This sounds good, but hold little water legally speaking. The term "functional homolog" was used, and "functional isomer" was the best relatable term I found.

For my part, I never contended anything from the isomer point of view, I believe this is an easy legal hurdle. The fulcrum of my argument lies in these compounds are analogs and not homologs and therefore are not controlled other than the "not for human consumption" wordage.
 
it doesn't matter what anyone here says. the law is based on judges and lawyers which are unpredictable factors even when given clear and explicit rules to follow (the law).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top