• Cannabis Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules

[MEGA] JWH-018 Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm starting to worry a lot. :( I've smoked Spice gold around 5-6 times over the past 2-3 months. I just bought a bag of spice diamond. I like spice but the theories about the JWH 018 are just scary. Should I be worried about getting cancer?
 
Should I be worried about getting cancer?

As murphy said:

murphy said:
The statement that this particular compound (and closely related congeners) is presumably (but of course not "certainly") cancerogenic in humans is absolutely justified!

Peace! Murphy

mostly,it´s not only one single factor causing cancer. Do you have a disposition for cancer in your family ? Then i´d be worried more about that, than smoking spice. If this is the case and you smoke spice you´ll certainly be dead in approx. 475,85 days 8)
The process of getting cancer is still not yet fully understood.( why do ppl living perfectly healthy get it? ) It´s to expect that you´ll have a statistically higher chance to get cancer, if you consume substances that are connected with causing it.
 
Last edited:
I'm starting to worry a lot. :( I've smoked Spice gold around 5-6 times over the past 2-3 months. I just bought a bag of spice diamond. I like spice but the theories about the JWH 018 are just scary. Should I be worried about getting cancer?

No, not at this low rate of consumption. You probably consumed more cancerogenic stuff with BBQ'd meat and the regular food. Concerns are justified but no need to exaggerate pal!

Peace! Murphy
 
Predicted Log P's (partition coefficients) courtesy of ChemDraw...
Duloxetine, 4.33. JWH-018, 5.68. (higher = more hydrophobic)

It's significantly more lipophilic. More opportunity for Bad Stuff to happen ;) .

Thx for the backup!!! :)
 
Duloxetine also has more moieties that can be targeted for metabolism--the N-methyl can be cleaved off to form the primary amine and then the naphthylol moiety can be cleaved off. JWH-018 is pretty much all carbon all the time.
 
A series of pre-clinical ADME/Toxicity studies were conducted on JWH-018 including CYPs, Genotox, hERG, Cytotox, Rodent Tox (LD50, Acute Dose, Repeat Dose & Pharmakinetics). All tests passed within tolerable guidelines. JWH-018 tested negative for genotox (ie cancer) using standard GreenScreen HC both with and without S9 (fraction from liver hepatocytes which metabolizes compounds and looks for genotoxic metabolites).

Further detailed information is forthcoming.
 
A series of pre-clinical ADME/Toxicity studies were conducted on JWH-018 including CYPs, Genotox, hERG, Cytotox, Rodent Tox (LD50, Acute Dose, Repeat Dose & Pharmakinetics). All tests passed within tolerable guidelines. JWH-018 tested negative for genotox (ie cancer) using standard GreenScreen HC both with and without S9 (fraction from liver hepatocytes which metabolizes compounds and looks for genotoxic metabolites).

Further detailed information is forthcoming.

So this means the shit probably aint that lethal?

Should one that smokes twice a month be worried or could one continue with it?
 
A series of pre-clinical ADME/Toxicity studies were conducted on JWH-018 including CYPs, Genotox, hERG, Cytotox, Rodent Tox (LD50, Acute Dose, Repeat Dose & Pharmakinetics). All tests passed within tolerable guidelines. JWH-018 tested negative for genotox (ie cancer) using standard GreenScreen HC both with and without S9 (fraction from liver hepatocytes which metabolizes compounds and looks for genotoxic metabolites).

Further detailed information is forthcoming.


please post the data. or allow someone independant to look at it.

remember though that these tox tests are not smoked material.

the jury is out until there is solid data.
 
...I've read that statement now within 2 hours at 4 different boards. Somebody is massively spreading presumably "good" news without providing backup for the info.

Can anyone comment on reliability and reproducibility of the mentioned "GreenScreen HC"-assay?
 
Nobody (absolutely NOBODY) can say after which dose you will have a x% higher risk of getting cancer. In theory one single molecule is enough to cause the harm. Of course, that's just theory. The most practical and realistic approach to cancerogenic substances is to avoid contact at all, or as much as possible.

Yo Murphy!

Since i see quite some interest in this thread and people are already being concerned for smoking the..."godsend" spice, i think it would be good to elaborate more on this issue. For me , my prime interest is people to get an as most accurate as possible idea of how the "mechanics" of mutagenicity/carcinogenicity take place.

First of all carcinogenesis is not usually a "one step" procedure. That means that usually before a cell turns carcinic more than one changes happen to it.They have to do with cell cycle regulation (especially the cell division -mitotic procedures-) , with the cell's mechanisms to rectify this -a minimum of them must be turned "off" lets say-, and then later other steps that could possibly allow the cell to become dislogged from the tissue it resides in, migrate to another position and be CAPABLE of angiogenesis to ensure a supply of blood to the tumor ,and hence its survival. The last series of events concern "metastasis" ,a phenomenon when cancer cells migrate to multiple organs usually through the bloodflow.This stage also is where the quite promising "antimetastatic" medications fit in ,inhibiting angiogenesis (blood vessel formation) . All of the above mechanisms are controled at a genetic level, hence mutations might cause cancer IF they hit the "right" genes. Now this "IF" is the whole story...

Some people have predisposition to cancer meaning that propably they carry mutations/alleles and to put it simply they are "one step ahead" in cancer formation than those who dont.

On the "IF" issue : Indeed a single molecule of a substance COULD cause a mutation as its DIRECT action or as action of one of its metabolites. What would have to happen is the molecule or the metabolite to interact with DNA and -through a variety of mechanisms- either interfere with its correct duplication during a mitotic cycle or straightforwardly change something in its chemical structure.

I would say this issue looks akin to the radioactivity "bullet and target" mutagenicity : Imagine the mutagenic molecule as a "stray bullet" in a room.It might hit noone.It might hit someone in a multitude of ways from crippling him to only a superficial wound to killing him by a "bullseye" on his/her heart. So a stray bullet can be dangerous. Increasing the QUANTITY of the molecules ,it is as if increasing the quantity of stray bullets. Increasing the FREQUENCY of the administration,increases via propability that in a "bullet firing session" someone gets hurt.

So as said before , the safest option would be not to fire straight bullets in a room ,there is chance someone dropping dead or worse :) . If one HAS to fire bullets -bulletophiliacs ;) - then fewer bullets, less frequent firings guarantee comparative safety than a barrage of bullets.

Hope this clears up the issue a bit, and mostly to clear up WHY cant anyone tell what is the chance of causing mutation to DNA AND lead to carcinogenicity with certainity.

Can anyone comment on reliability and reproducibility of the mentioned "GreenScreen HC"-assay?

I cannot promise anything yet, but if i can have a toxicologist look at the data i will do and report back. I will have a look at them myself, although im far from qualified on this field
 
I really hope that Jwh-018 isn't that dangerous as some theories say. I was pretty worried for a while before.
 
Some say it might be VERY likely to cause cancer since cigaretts which also creates epoxides only contain 1/2000 as much as jwh-018 does.

Any comment on this?
 
Some say it might be VERY likely to cause cancer since cigaretts which also creates epoxides only contain 1/2000 as much as jwh-018 does.

Any comment on this?

To clearify this means that smoking one spice joint is like smoking 2000 cigaretts.
 
Wow, and I was gonna order some JWH-018. Maybe I'll get 073 instead 'cause that sounds really scary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top