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

The Big & Dandy Synthetic Cannabinoids Thread

Which synthetic cannabinoid do you like or prefer?

  • JWH-018

    Votes: 89 50.0%

  • JWH-073

    Votes: 30 16.9%

  • JWH-133

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • JWH-200

    Votes: 2 1.1%

  • JWH-250

    Votes: 28 15.7%

  • CP-47,497

    Votes: 3 1.7%

  • CP-55,940

    Votes: 8 4.5%

  • HU-210

    Votes: 5 2.8%

  • HU-211

    Votes: 1 0.6%

  • WIN 55,212-2

    Votes: 7 3.9%

  • AM-2201

    Votes: 5 2.8%
  • Total voters
    178
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, that is definitely a consideration. I am not taking heroic doses of opiates, just enough to help with pain from Crohns, but it is a consideration.

I havnt really been smoking weed....Maybe I should see how I handle that first.

How would you compare 73 by itself to weed?
 
Sentience said:
I dont know if this has been posted yet, but this is allegedly some research that suggests that JWH-18 isnt that toxic at lower concentrations in humans.

http://www.synchronium.net/2009/02/21/jwh-018-toxicology/
Click to expand...
things are usually only as good as the quality of the source, and sadly the original source is dubious and I will go further to say anything on that site is dubious, run as it is by a dodgy vendor, a peddler of mislabeled and unknown shite to uninformed people.

Almost all the JWH cannabinoids produce anxiety at higher doses, and in some people even at normal doses, there is a complex pharmacological reason for this which I won't go into now, but it is the flip side of the more psychedelic effects that the JWH compounds produce compared to the CP series compounds/ THC and the other classicals.
Some of the JWH compounds are pretty unique in producing colour intensification and music appreciation without causing much clouding, confusion or short term memory problems, which is why it is a shame that they are now banned. Others in the series are just pure terror.
 
Last edited:
vecktor said:
depends which state..
eventually they are going to be banned federally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and people said the same about Salvia... :\

... IMO, it's not going to happen (federally), it's not a high priority issue since most people have never heard of a Cannabinoid or JWH-xxx / WIN / CP / HU- (besides the fact that the DEA knows they can't afford more "Cannabis" fighting) and if anything, people should be making sure it does not get banned in their State.
 
Why dont some of us get together and write a nifty little letter to send out to our representatives talking about how important it is to allow research chemicals to be available to scientists to test theories or develop new medicines, and that even if some of these chemicals can be abused it is not proper justification to stifle science unless abuse becomes prolific or the level of harm is conclusively proven to severe and epidemic. We might be able to cure auto-immune diseases or find less addictive ways of treating chronic pain...that has to be worth something.


If I were to write a cool letter to that effect, would anyone else be willing to send a copy to their representatives? Anyone want to help me write it?
 
Sentience said:
Why dont some of us get together and write a nifty little letter to send out to our representatives talking about how important it is to allow research chemicals to be available to scientists to test theories or develop new medicines, and that even if some of these chemicals can be abused it is not proper justification to stifle science unless abuse becomes prolific or the level of harm is conclusively proven to severe and epidemic. We might be able to cure auto-immune diseases or find less addictive ways of treating chronic pain...that has to be worth something.


If I were to write a cool letter to that effect, would anyone else be willing to send a copy to their representatives? Anyone want to help me write it?
Click to expand...

This should be a good start for anyone who cares to do this (or needs info for fighting legislature in their state!), these are some awesome sources (Proving these particular Cannabinoids actually inhibit Cancer/tumor growth):

http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=520822#post520822

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v101/n6/abs/6605248a.html

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=a3856676f52f83dacb4997e57c829176

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2009/10/30/1535-7163.MCT-09-0448.abstract[

http://www.jleukbio.org/cgi/content/full/82/3/532

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/16116/version/1

http://www.cancer-therapy.org/CT6A/HTML/11._Fogli_&_Breschi,_103-116.html

http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v101/n6/abs/6605248a.html

http://mct.aacrjournals.org/content/8/11/3117.abstract

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/reprint/17/3/529.pdf

http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/17/3/529

Combined with a Toxology report:

"Well, from the looks of these tests, JWH-018 seems to be pretty safe, but unless you want to piss off Ben Goldacre, it would be wise not to rely on this “test tube data” entirely. Also, like I said before, we don’t know where this data has come from, clouding the issue even further."

http://www.mindfully.org/JWH/JWH-018/JWH-018-Toxicity-Results.htm

http://www.synchronium.net/2009/02/21/jwh-018-toxicology

Conclusion, from what we can gather, is that this compound is most likely safe and has great potential for medicinal research.
 
I am yet to test 73 to see if I like it any better than the natural stuff. I think it would be great if these were used in medicine though.
 
I am looking for any experiences with JWH-81, 200, and 250.....Anyone tried these? How do they compare?

I hear 200 is good for pain relief.
 
vecktor said:
things are usually only as good as the quality of the source, and sadly the original source is dubious and I will go further to say anything on that site is dubious, run as it is by a dodgy vendor, a peddler of mislabeled and unknown shite to uninformed people.
Click to expand...


Thx. 8)

Please see this sentence toward the top of the original article:

"(Quick Update – A lot of people have been discussing and linking to this post, but there remains some suspicion that I have something to gain by saying the JWH-018 isn’t that harmful. Firstly, JWH-018 is now illegal in the UK. Secondly, as I mentioned just above this, if I have got anything wrong, please pick me up on it! If it turns out my analysis of the data is incorrect, I will correct it!)"

The only thing that's dubious is the original documents themselves, which is pointed out in the first paragraph:

"Before we get down to the details however, here’s some pretty weird background information – the sponsor and provider of these studies wishes to remain anonymous! Unfortunately, this makes the whole thing a lot less credible, but since this is the only information we have right now, let’s hope someone else can verify these things at a later date. "

The original pdfs are also linked to in that post, which are available elsewhere too.

Please feel free to write up your own review of them and we'll see where you and I disagree, shall we?

I'm not "just" a vendor, I have a degree in "Medical Science (Pharmacology)". Just because you disagree with what I do, doesn't mean I'm automatically a) a bastard and b) have the mental capacity of a lowly shopkeeper. Good science is good science.
 
Synchronium said:
I'm not "just" a vendor, I have a degree in "Medical Science (Pharmacology)".
Click to expand...

then you will know that what you are doing is completely ethically unacceptable, unless at Birmingham they skipped the ethics section.

you simply should not sell things with misleading contents or no contents list whatsoever, it flies in the face of informed consent.
Also you know what GMP means, you know that there should be quality control of materials, neither of which you do, in fact I suggest you actually do not know what is really in the materials you peddle.
I have no reason to doubt your parentage, I have reason to doubt your ethics and motives and therefore by inference the motives behind writing of your blog.

I am agnostic wrt JWH series compounds, I would expect that like most things moderate use is not significantly harmful.

good science means that a, the investigator is contactable and b, the raw data experimental methodology etc is available, it is also refutable, none of which is true regarding the JWH 018 toxicology report.
there are some hints of things in that work which are interesting and other things that are concerning however there is no way to follow up on it other than by replicating all the work, only this time under the restrictions of a home office licence (yeah thanks for that vendors)
 
Last edited:
Birmingham poly, lol. Not quite.

I actually got a 1st on my ethics module.

By all means be sceptical (scepticism is encouraged by me) of what I write, but I've tried my hardest to address any scepticism in the post by providing the original documents (which still may be false) and the two disclaimers.
I'm not saying those originals were "good science", as they're clearly not. I was saying my interpretation was, since I'm pretty sure that everyone will draw the same conclusions from the limited data given. I once again invite you to review the data, write your own conclusions (and motives, whatever they may be) and compare them to mine.

My motivations for writing that one post in particular was that I was asked to by Alfa from DF, who later reposted it on his forums.

Whether or not you think what I do is ethical is a discussion for another time, and more importantly, another thread.
 
I was wondering is there any other chemicals which acts like CB1 agonist.. except its not JWH, CP, WIN derivative ? maybe someone knows ??
 
There are lots of JWHs, and they are not all analogs of each other. Some are chemically unrelated. Their similarity is the guy who made them.
 
Yes i know that there are many JWH's but they all seems to be indoles +- same... so maybe there is whole new class like JWH ??
 
No, some of the JWH's are totally chemically unrelated and in their own unique chemical classes.

There are some other cannibinoids in different classes, but some of them are already scheduled as drugs or medicine.
 
JWH-250 (1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole) is an analgesic chemical from the phenylacetylindole family, which acts as a cannabinoid agonist at both the CB1 and CB2 receptors, with a Ki of 11nM at CB1 and 33nM at CB2. Unlike many of the older JWH series compounds, this compound does not have a naphthalene ring, instead occupying this position with a 2'-methoxyphenylacetyl group, making JWH-250 a representative member of a new class of cannabinoid ligands.[2] Other 2'-substituted analogues such as the methyl, chloro and bromo compounds are also active and somewhat more potent.[3][4] It's rumored to be one of the cannabinoids in herbal blends such as Pandora Potpourri [5], that is quickly replacing K2 Blends in states where JWH-018 is being banned.

Samples of JWH-250 were first identified in May 2009 by the German Federal Criminal Police, as an ingredient in new generation "herbal smoking blends" which had been released since the banning of the original ingredients (C8)-CP 47,497 and JWH-018.[6]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWH-250
 
Side effects with JWH-250

Has anyone experienced side effects with the cannaboid compound JWH-250?

I myself have felt mild to moderately nauseas of doses between 5-10mg. Also within an hour or so, after several repeated sessions totally around 30mg, I have experienced a weird low frequency throbbing muscle pain around one of my kidneys and on the back of my neck. I'm not sure if the later problem is related, but I assume, due to these cannaboids analgesic effect, it may of uncovered latent muscle tension.

Anyone care to add?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top