7 ms·

Welcome to the world of designer drugs [1]. If its molecular structure is changed, you can't really call it synthetic marijuana anymore. The 'solution' is simp

by wjnc 12y ago

Welcome to the world of designer drugs [1]. If its molecular structure is changed, you can't really call it synthetic marijuana anymore. The 'solution' is simple, but politically unfeasible. (Ok, if it's unfeasible, it's not a solution.) Legalize several well-tested drugs (cannabis with max. THC, MDMA, ...) where the side effects to public health and safety are acceptable. Outlaw the rest. So strange that alcohol and smoking are legal, while many lesser evils are illegal. It should tunnel the masses into the legalized produce (they are looking for, and getting, the thrill anyway), while bringing markets back to normal. As a added benifit, normal markets bring less criminal attention and need less government intervention. (For the Europeans: VAT as a bonus.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_drug http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designer_drug

Nursie 12y ago
I think you can call it synthetic marijuana - that's what it's mimicking. The synthetic cannabinoids target the same receptors, the products are targeted at the same market and used in the same way as the real thing. But I agree, legalise a few relatively well understood drugs and this whole problem mostly goes away. There are a small number of people genuinely interested in experimenting with new compounds, most simply want to use a few of the popular drugs without getting in trouble, losing their job etc, or don't have a way of getting what they se as the 'real' stuff. And the experimenters aren't usually interested in cannabinoids.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Synthetic Marijuana would be synthesizing THC in a lab. They are synthesizing something similar to THC in a lab, something that doesn't exist in marijuana. Marinol is Syntheic Marijuana, these designer drugs like "Spice" and "K2" are not.
  - Nursie 12y ago
    >> Synthetic Marijuana would be synthesizing THC in a lab. That would be synthetically produced THC, not synthetic marijuana. We're talking about a product designed to mimic cannabis, using synthetic cannabinoids. I don't think it's unreasonable to call it synthetic cannabis. If you want to call it "fake cannabis" that's fine, but then we need to distinguish it from the people just selling oregano and calling it weed... -- edit -- Incidentally, on the UK RC scene these things are referred to as 'Blends', as they are often blends of multiple cannabinoids infused into plant material, which is often a blend of different plants (marshmallow and damiana are popular). Further, 'reputable' vendors of these blends publish what substances they've used and how much by weight. This is very unlikely to be the case with a bag of "Atomic Fallout" or whatever the f*ck it is from your local gas station or head shop though. Some people buy the cannabinoids pure and make their own blends, or vapourise them directly, which is a very dodgy and OD-prone business, but at least then you know roughly hat you're getting and how much.
    - oxide 12y ago
      the proper terminology is "synthetic cannabinoid." semantics are very important here. synthetic marijuana is an oxymoron IMO.
      - Nursie 12y ago
        >> the proper terminology is "synthetic cannabinoid." For the cannabinoids themselves, certainly. Now, what's a good way to refer to the products that are sold in head shops and all sorts of other places? They are a blend of plant materials laced with a one or more synthetic cannabinoids. Synthetic cannabis does not seem wrong here.
      - strathmeyer 12y ago
        They aren't using the word in the medical sense. "Devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities." The product is made to look like ganja and to be used as an alternative to ganja. s_baby points out the correct term is analog.
Uberphallus 12y ago
> Outlaw the rest. Study the rest. The ban has brought many bad things, but it's also brought good alternatives. The 2C family, for example, arose because of the ban on LSD/mescaline/mushrooms, and is considered to have similar safety profile as the originals. Certain benzofurans (5/6-APB, APDB, MAPB, EAPB, etc) receive bigger love than MDMA because of fewer side effects and because they "bring back the magic" that prolonged MDMA use tends to dull out.
- malka 12y ago
  imo, the 2C family is old enough to not be considered a designer drug anymore.
- tyho 12y ago
  Legalise/Regulate all the drugs. Given the choice between a 'traditional' drug like Coke, MDMA and LSD and some new alphabet soup drug with no history of human use, very few people will choose the thing they haven't heard about. If there is one thing we have learned since the war on drugs it is that prohibition does not work. The 2C-x drugs certainly did not arise from the prohibition of older psychedelics. The man who invented them (along with MDMA earlier) was Alexander Shulgin. It was his life's work to discover and test these new drugs. I seriously doubt it was in reaction to prohibition. 2C-x as far as we know does not have a similar safety profile to the drugs you have mentioned in general. LSD is known to be safe in at least 1000x the normal dose. The highest dose in the literature for 2C-B is 5x the normal dose. Certain drugs in the series such as 2C-P have a very low safety margin[1]. [1] https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal036.shtml https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal036...
  - Nursie 12y ago
    I'm not sure that Shulgin actually invented MDMA did he? Certainly he dedicated his life to discovery and testing of all sorts of interesting things, and his legacy is enormous, but I didn't think that one was his invention.
    - tyho 12y ago
jcromartie 12y ago
It boggles the mind how we have outlawed plants and fungi whose safety and effects have been known and proven over and over again for thousands of years. Plenty of highly poisonous plants that can (and do) kill people are not illegal to grow in your garden.
LordKano 12y ago
There's no need to ban the rest. Prohibition is what is causing this problem in the first place. If you legalize marijuana, would be no profit to be made in coming up with new synthetics and without a profit motive, only researchers would do it. For example, since the end of alcohol prohibition, how many cases are there of people being blinded by methyl alcohol from bathtub gin?
- wjnc 12y ago
  True. And a natural (economic) consequence as well. Although 'legalize everything and advertise what works' seems even more politically unfeasible, than 'only unban what's safe'. It came from an argument (in my head ;) based on the proposition that you would ideally internalize adverse effects in the price of a good. So alcohol-users would pay for alcohol related mischief, LSD for LSD, etc. You would need a product specific VAT for the larger categories. Can't really implement that for N designer drugs, so I thought 'ban the rest for easy of acceptance'. Your effect is more beautiful though.
  - oxide 12y ago
    the synthetic cannabinoids are popular in part because because smoking marijuana will cause a failed UA. when it hit the shelves my friends on probation were smoking it to 'beat' the system.
    - LordKano 12y ago
      The first person that I ever saw smoke synthetic was someone who was recently released from prison and had to worry about urinalysis.

by wjnc 12y ago

Nursie 12y ago

I think you can call it synthetic marijuana - that's what it's mimicking. The synthetic cannabinoids target the same receptors, the products are targeted at the same market and used in the same way as the real thing. But I agree, legalise a few relatively well understood drugs and this whole problem mostly goes away. There are a small number of people genuinely interested in experimenting with new compounds, most simply want to use a few of the popular drugs without getting in trouble, losing their job etc, or don't have a way of getting what they se as the 'real' stuff. And the experimenters aren't usually interested in cannabinoids.

Igglyboo 12y ago
Synthetic Marijuana would be synthesizing THC in a lab. They are synthesizing something similar to THC in a lab, something that doesn't exist in marijuana. Marinol is Syntheic Marijuana, these designer drugs like "Spice" and "K2" are not.
- Nursie 12y ago
  >> Synthetic Marijuana would be synthesizing THC in a lab. That would be synthetically produced THC, not synthetic marijuana. We're talking about a product designed to mimic cannabis, using synthetic cannabinoids. I don't think it's unreasonable to call it synthetic cannabis. If you want to call it "fake cannabis" that's fine, but then we need to distinguish it from the people just selling oregano and calling it weed... -- edit -- Incidentally, on the UK RC scene these things are referred to as 'Blends', as they are often blends of multiple cannabinoids infused into plant material, which is often a blend of different plants (marshmallow and damiana are popular). Further, 'reputable' vendors of these blends publish what substances they've used and how much by weight. This is very unlikely to be the case with a bag of "Atomic Fallout" or whatever the f*ck it is from your local gas station or head shop though. Some people buy the cannabinoids pure and make their own blends, or vapourise them directly, which is a very dodgy and OD-prone business, but at least then you know roughly hat you're getting and how much.
  - oxide 12y ago
    the proper terminology is "synthetic cannabinoid." semantics are very important here. synthetic marijuana is an oxymoron IMO.
    - Nursie 12y ago
      >> the proper terminology is "synthetic cannabinoid." For the cannabinoids themselves, certainly. Now, what's a good way to refer to the products that are sold in head shops and all sorts of other places? They are a blend of plant materials laced with a one or more synthetic cannabinoids. Synthetic cannabis does not seem wrong here.
    - strathmeyer 12y ago
      They aren't using the word in the medical sense. "Devised, arranged, or fabricated for special situations to imitate or replace usual realities." The product is made to look like ganja and to be used as an alternative to ganja. s_baby points out the correct term is analog.

Uberphallus 12y ago

> Outlaw the rest. Study the rest. The ban has brought many bad things, but it's also brought good alternatives. The 2C family, for example, arose because of the ban on LSD/mescaline/mushrooms, and is considered to have similar safety profile as the originals. Certain benzofurans (5/6-APB, APDB, MAPB, EAPB, etc) receive bigger love than MDMA because of fewer side effects and because they "bring back the magic" that prolonged MDMA use tends to dull out.

malka 12y ago
imo, the 2C family is old enough to not be considered a designer drug anymore.
tyho 12y ago
Legalise/Regulate all the drugs. Given the choice between a 'traditional' drug like Coke, MDMA and LSD and some new alphabet soup drug with no history of human use, very few people will choose the thing they haven't heard about. If there is one thing we have learned since the war on drugs it is that prohibition does not work. The 2C-x drugs certainly did not arise from the prohibition of older psychedelics. The man who invented them (along with MDMA earlier) was Alexander Shulgin. It was his life's work to discover and test these new drugs. I seriously doubt it was in reaction to prohibition. 2C-x as far as we know does not have a similar safety profile to the drugs you have mentioned in general. LSD is known to be safe in at least 1000x the normal dose. The highest dose in the literature for 2C-B is 5x the normal dose. Certain drugs in the series such as 2C-P have a very low safety margin[1]. [1] https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal036.shtml https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal036...
- Nursie 12y ago
  I'm not sure that Shulgin actually invented MDMA did he? Certainly he dedicated his life to discovery and testing of all sorts of interesting things, and his legacy is enormous, but I didn't think that one was his invention.
  - tyho 12y ago

jcromartie 12y ago

It boggles the mind how we have outlawed plants and fungi whose safety and effects have been known and proven over and over again for thousands of years. Plenty of highly poisonous plants that can (and do) kill people are not illegal to grow in your garden.

LordKano 12y ago

There's no need to ban the rest. Prohibition is what is causing this problem in the first place. If you legalize marijuana, would be no profit to be made in coming up with new synthetics and without a profit motive, only researchers would do it. For example, since the end of alcohol prohibition, how many cases are there of people being blinded by methyl alcohol from bathtub gin?

wjnc 12y ago
True. And a natural (economic) consequence as well. Although 'legalize everything and advertise what works' seems even more politically unfeasible, than 'only unban what's safe'. It came from an argument (in my head ;) based on the proposition that you would ideally internalize adverse effects in the price of a good. So alcohol-users would pay for alcohol related mischief, LSD for LSD, etc. You would need a product specific VAT for the larger categories. Can't really implement that for N designer drugs, so I thought 'ban the rest for easy of acceptance'. Your effect is more beautiful though.
- oxide 12y ago
  the synthetic cannabinoids are popular in part because because smoking marijuana will cause a failed UA. when it hit the shelves my friends on probation were smoking it to 'beat' the system.
  - LordKano 12y ago
    The first person that I ever saw smoke synthetic was someone who was recently released from prison and had to worry about urinalysis.