australian study now recruiting: synthetic cannabis and the law

[DarkSpark]

I actualy thought that most JWH product were created in an effort to harness the medicle side of zee reefer and was later used in products that we see today

 

Wrong THC is one of MANY canabinoids that play on the CB (?) recptors. Im no expert on these things, but i think what ive said so far is at least fairly correct. Pretty much everything you have said is very incorect. I cant be bothered to look right now, but im sure a short trip to wiki-fucking-pedia would expand your knowledge on the subject.

Typo

 

thats pretty much what i said, it was created to mimic the effects of THC, admittedly i shouldnt have specified a single cannabinol as i did but rather left it open. I am well read on synthetics, from memory they were created to study how stuff binds to the CB receptors and as such and how this in turn affects the body as well as "evil" invaders in the body etc. Which is STILL them trying to make something synthetic that will do what the real stuff does, no matter how you put it they are attempting to created something that is already naturally avaliable. Even if it isn't for the "high" that it was made, it was still made in the hope of emulating other cannabinols including THC, even if not for the reasons we now use it.

in short: It is pretty much like everything else, they can recreate it, then sell this recreated synthetic version (which they can patent and subsequently make a squillion and in the meantime continue the propaganda agains cannabis keeping it illegal and keeping us little sheep buying their goods.

And eatfoo, to me your not coming across as a jerk, just very honest, i like it when people voice their opinions rather than going along with the flow. However i would think that personal comments should be avoided (i.e. calling people stupid etc) why not just PROOVE people to be stupid with your facts and links to resources that back you up.

Edited December 10, 2011 by DarkSpark

[Foo]

Less or a million less ;)

[OPP]

Done.

Good to see both users and non users are welcome.

[faustus]

in short: It is pretty much like everything else, they can recreate it, then sell this recreated synthetic version (which they can patent and subsequently make a squillion and in the meantime continue the propaganda agains cannabis keeping it illegal and keeping us little sheep buying their goods.

JWH etc are full agonists of the CB1/2 receptors not partial agonists, as is the case for THC.

but i think you've got it all mixed up as attempting to mimic the action of cannabinoids wasn't the real reason why they were invented, and their discovery was actually pure serendipity. apparently they were developing different types of incense at some natural therapies research lab at clemson university and during testing one of the chemists accidentally inhaled the vapours of one of the incense blends and got majorly stoned. hence the legend of spice was born, a la albert hofmann and LSD, but nowhere remotely as cool. the guy who discovered spice is apparently called john huffman too, pretty chronic coincidence brah!

regardless, i reckon the only people making a profit from the sale of synthetic cannabis products these days are HHH et al, not Big Pharma.

[Foo]

And eatfoo, to me your not coming across as a jerk, just very honest, i like it when people voice their opinions rather than going along with the flow. However i would think that personal comments should be avoided (i.e. calling people stupid etc) why not just PROOVE people to be stupid with your facts and links to resources that back you up.

 

Fair call

Also i think my reply was mostly directed at Myco not your posts.

regardless, i reckon the only people making a profit from the sale of synthetic cannabis products these days are HHH et al, not Big Pharma.

I dont think my Local HHH retails synthetics. I got the evil eyes when i asking about anything synthetic.

Edited December 12, 2011 by eatfoo

[myco]

JWH etc are full agonists of the CB1/2 receptors not partial agonists, as is the case for THC.

but i think you've got it all mixed up as attempting to mimic the action of cannabinoids wasn't the real reason why they were invented, and their discovery was actually pure serendipity. apparently they were developing different types of incense at some natural therapies research lab at clemson university and during testing one of the chemists accidentally inhaled the vapours of one of the incense blends and got majorly stoned. hence the legend of spice was born, a la albert hofmann and LSD, but nowhere remotely as cool. the guy who discovered spice is apparently called john huffman too, pretty chronic coincidence brah!

regardless, i reckon the only people making a profit from the sale of synthetic cannabis products these days are HHH et al, not Big Pharma.

 

jwh was not created to be an incense that is just wat they pass it off as to try and sell it

JWH-018 is the laboratory-synthesized substance which has been designed 'from the ground up', just to get people high. At least that was the explanation JW Huffman gave it. He's the fella who invented this stuff as well as the man who put the JWH in JWH-018

it was made to be a synthetic canabinoid the stuff was created to mimic the effects of thc

[myco]

Fair call

Also i think my reply was mostly directed at Myco not your posts.

 

yes it was directed at me

and i apolagise for my fuck you eatfoo comment but i felt you were trying to make me sound very stupid

im not stupid and everyone has thier own opinions

and i got a few plus's on my initial comment

so clearly im not the only one that thinks they should just get rid of this synthetic stuff and legalise canabis

more testing needs to be done on synthetics in my opinion

and i still think canabis is much safer than these synthetics at least for now

in my opinion there has not been enough research done on these things

and they have not been around long enough for anyone to claim they are perfectly safe

theres been to many reports of bad experiences and side effects to taking alot of these synthetic canabinoids

and as someone who has smoked alot of cannabis in my time i tried synthetics and didnt like it at all again just my opinion

and when canabis has been around for thousands of years and is largely considered safe

why bother with these kinds of synthetics

just legalize cannabis

this is just my opinion though so yeh

[tronica]

@myco

I've had a few unsolicited emails since this survey began from people who have had pretty bad health experiences after using synthetic cannabinoids. This is only anecdotal information of course, but it's enough to be concerned. Even if there are many people that use it with no major problems, if some people are experiencing major harms, it's something we should look at more.

I don't think we can categorically say that cannabis is safer than synthetic cannabinoids without further research. But if it was a bet, I would bet that cannabis is safer - because, as you point out, there has been a lot more research and we know a lot more about the risks associated with cannabis (eg. heavy use when teenage and when you have schizophrenia-type history is a recipe for harm with cannabis).

I don't think we can say that any drug is 'safe', even caffeine. The context, the setting, the set, individual differences, the purity, the route of administration, etc etc, all contribute to how any one drug experience or set of experiences will turn out... in my humble opinion

[myco]

@myco

I've had a few unsolicited emails since this survey began from people who have had pretty bad health experiences after using synthetic cannabinoids. This is only anecdotal information of course, but it's enough to be concerned. Even if there are many people that use it with no major problems, if some people are experiencing major harms, it's something we should look at more.

I don't think we can categorically say that cannabis is safer than synthetic cannabinoids without further research. But if it was a bet, I would bet that cannabis is safer - because, as you point out, there has been a lot more research and we know a lot more about the risks associated with cannabis (eg. heavy use when teenage and when you have schizophrenia-type history is a recipe for harm with cannabis).

I don't think we can say that any drug is 'safe', even caffeine. The context, the setting, the set, individual differences, the purity, the route of administration, etc etc, all contribute to how any one drug experience or set of experiences will turn out... in my humble opinion

 

thanks tronica

i very much agree with you

more research needs to be done on the synthetics

all i can think is cannabis has had thousands of years of use and alot of years of research

i know that cannabis is not completely safe such as the factors you pointed out with schizophrenia

and heavy use as a teeneger ect.

while synthetics have not been around that long and alot already seem to have some pretty bad side affects

acording to alot of peoples experiences

so in my opinion

the odds seem to weigh in that plain old cannabis seems to be alot safer

as you say if it were a bet

you would bet cannabis would be safer

exactly wat i think

who knows maybe we'll be proven wrong in the future with newer synthetic canabinoids

but at this point im definately leaning towards cannabis being much safer

again just my opinion

[2Deep2Handle]

Hey guys sorry to jump in but i felt i needed to.

I feel that synthetic cannibinoids(JWH family and JWH-018 in particular) are worse than the real thing.

To understand some knowledge about both needs to be known, as well as the receptors they affect.

Marijuana is a partial cb1 receptor agonist and partial cb2 receptor agonist.

The CB1 is the one that delta9THC hits and produces psychotic effects, and CBD(another cannabinoid present in dope) hits the CB2, which is the calming anti-psychotic effect. (yeah funny dope is anti psychotic and psychotic at the same time)(this is why hyrdro is bad, as they look to increase thc only and not the other naturally occuring oils, that prevent psychosis, but thats another thread's story)

Now to the juicy part. JWH-018 (1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole) is a full-agonist on the CB1 with a reported binding affinity of 9.00±5.00 nM, at CB1 receptor(get you high), and a full-agonist on the CB2 receptor(stop you from losing your mind), reported binding affinity of 2.94±2.65 nM at CB2 meaning the overall potency of this substance is actually greater than that of marijuana, and therefore in my opinion, because of its binding affinity to the CB1 vs CB2, has a greater potential for psychosis and addiction.

So to say that it was designed with 'medicine' in mind is not right, as John W Hoffman created a substance (the first sythn cannibinoid (JWH-018)) designed to reproduce marijuana's effects in the maximum possible way, as opposed to trying to produce a full agonist on the CB2 and only a partial on the CB1, which would then certainly have to be considered as having "medical" value. I believe they are now starting to look at indole family groups that do produce this effect.

and heres some good reading for some more knowledge on how the magic herb works! Enjoy people and stop bickering.... Peace and light to you all

Cannabinoids

What is a cannabinoid?

There are approximately 500 natural components found within the Cannabis sativa plant, of which up to 80 have been classified as ‘cannabinoids’; chemicals unique to the plant. The most well known and researched of these, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the substance primarily responsible for the psychoactive effects of cannabis.

The effects of THC are believed to be moderated by the influence of the other components of the plant, most particularly the cannabinoids.

The cannabinoids are separated into subclasses. These are as follows:

cannabigerols (CBG)

cannabichromenes (CBC)

cannabidiols (CBD)

tetrahydrocannabinols (THC)

cannabinol (CBN) and cannabinodiol (CBDL)

other cannabinoids (such as cannabicyclol (CBL), cannabielsoin (CBE), cannabitriol (CBT) and other miscellaneous types)

What do cannabinoids do?

Like opiates (substances derived from the opium poppy such as heroin), cannabinoids affect the user by interacting with specific receptors, located within different parts of the central nervous system. Two kinds of cannabinoid receptors have been found to date and are termed CB1 and CB2. A substance that occurs naturally within the brain and binds to CB1 receptors was discovered in 1992 and termed ‘anandamide’. Additional naturally occurring substances that bind to CB1 have since been discovered, and these, together with the receptors are termed the ‘endogenous cannabinoid system’.

The actual effects that the cannabinoids have reflect the areas of the brain they interact with. Interactions tend to occur in our limbic system (the part of the brain that affects memory, cognition and psychomotor performance) and mesolimbic pathway (activity in this region is associated with feelings of reward) and are also widely distributed in areas of pain perception.

We are still learning about the endogenous cannabinoid system. Much of the research however, has focused on the many potential medical uses of synthetic cannabinoids, called ‘synthetic analogues’.

What is the difference between cannabinoids?

The major differences between the cannabinoids are determined by the extent to which they are psychologically active. Three classes of cannabinoids, CBG, CBC and CBD are not known to have a psychoactive effect. THC, CBN, CBDL amongst other cannabinoids, are known to be psychologically active to varying degrees.

CBD may have anti-anxiety effects and lessen the psychoactive effects of THC. This means that a plant with a greater percentage of CBD may reduce the intensity of the effects of THC, which in effect, lowers the potency of the plant. Use of a cannabis plant with less CBD has been shown to have an increased psychological impact and result in unwanted effects such as anxiety.

When THC is exposed to air it oxidizes and forms CBN. CBN is only very weakly psychoactive and not unlike CBD, interacts with THC to reduce its effects. This is why cannabis that has been left out unused will have increasing amounts of CBN and decreasing amounts of THC and thus lose potency.

For more information please see the NCPIC research brief ‘cannabinoids’.

Correct as of October 2011

http://ncpic.org.au/ncpic/publications/factsheets/article/cannabinoids

Edited December 14, 2011 by 2Deep2Handle

[tronica]

Thanks for the info, 2Deep2Handle - you've indicated some solid reasoning for why the synthetic cannabinoid agonists might be more harmful than cannabis. Caution is definitely required!

[myco]

dont be sorry you jumped in

i wish you had jumped in earlier

you've provided more informative info than anyone has in this thread

aswell as pointing out some key factors to why synthetics seem to be alot more harmful than cannabis

you've also made me realise why i absolutely hate hydro's

Edited December 14, 2011 by myco

[faustus]

- although it's present in the brain, expression of CB2 receptors in the CNS is minimal in comparison to CB1 receptors.

- cannabidiol has no affinity to CB1 or CB2 receptors, and its analogues have only minimal affinity to these receptors. its anxiolytic effects are thought to be mediated via agonism of 5-HT1A receptors, which are also downstream targets of SSRI antidepressants and are also anxiolytc.

- as well as being implicated in psychosis, CB1 agonism is implicated in the anxiolytic effects of cannabinoids. i think shit is more complicated than assigning a psychological effect to a particular receptor though, and i've read bits and pieces about differential effects when CB1 receptors interact with GABAergic vs glutamatergic neurons.

- is it possible that JWH et al were designed for drug development and research, and not actually for human consumption? e.g. as a full agonist of the CB1/CB2 receptors, radiolabelled JWH-018 could be used to examine the distribution of cannabinoid receptors in the brain. or its displacement from the CB1 receptor could be used to test a putative CB1 antagonist. also, its efficacy as an aromatherapy has yet to be fully characterised.

- i have my own reasons why cunts might not want to take JWH-018 etc (huffing incense vapours?? c'mon guys, sniffing bostik was sooooo 1980s ), but i really don't think it'sgot this conspiratorial angle to it as seems to be insinuated.

[C_T]

so if all this "bad hydro weed" because if its receptor ratio's is causing an epidemic in habitual smokers, where are they? where's the psych ward admission explosion from too much activation?

if your using that bases to say synthetic cannabinoids are bad, i don't think you have a case...

more people than ever are smoking weed, and its definitely more hydro than ever!

I'm starting to see a pattern though, people who can't control themselves and smoke too much synthetic because its active at such low doses, these seem to be the "horror stories".

If said person had awesome hash that only a drop is a session and all of a sudden started smoking 6 or 8 drops, i'm sure they'd have equally negative sides.

just my 2 cents

[2Deep2Handle]

any one see the article floating around about one of the substances in the newest legal synth Kronic Black containing a fluorine molecule attached on the tail of the compound?...pretty much just to circumnavigate the law too cant remember where i read it but it certainly struck me as concerning.

faustus is right, and the originals(JWH series) more than likely weren't designed for human consumption, and he probably had nothing other than creating something of beneficial application in mind, but once people found out they could roughly reproduce the effects of pot by consuming them, and the government started banning them. The dodgy rat race to stay one step ahead of the law started and things like flourine molecules started appearing in the compounds.

I tend to think none of this would have happened had cannabis been legal from the start, and the synth cannabinoid industry would be able to develop as purely a medicinal industry, rather the the one it is today, targeting young misinformed people with the way they package, market/advertise and conceal its ingredients.

Not to mention the possibility of synergistic effects from the combinations of synthetics, even from across different structural groups, as many of these new fancy ""blends" contain. Thats why the are called blends aren't they?. I don't think they are blends of anything other than synths, and the only flora in the packet is marshmallow leaf?

C_T....i don't know enough to say if synths are 'bad', but they are worse than pot IMO, and more research needs to be done on mary jane, sythns and mapping and understanding the full CNS. We don't know enough about any of it IMO

Marijuana is one of the oldest ethno's, yet there is still so much to understand, but the legal status, and thus moral view of it worldwide makes it difficult.

[shruman]

"this is why hyrdro is bad, as they look to increase thc only and not the other naturally occuring oils, that prevent psychosis, but thats another thread's story"

Sorry but you raised it here.

What basis do you have for this statement?

I think the opposite is actualy more likely.

With hydro yes they do increase THC but THC oxidises/degrades to CBD. Because with hydro you remove the constant cycle of rain & wind physicaly removing the trichomes you allow alot more THC to be turned to CBD, giving you a cannabinoid profile much higher in CBD .

This is also quite evident with the subjective effects, Hydro classicaly being the stoning sit you on your arse stone & Bush being the up trippy stone.

[SunChaser]

I'm starting to see a pattern though, people who can't control themselves and smoke too much synthetic because its active at such low doses, these seem to be the "horror stories".

If said person had awesome hash that only a drop is a session and all of a sudden started smoking 6 or 8 drops, i'm sure they'd have equally negative sides.

 

This statement is completely untrue when it comes to toxic effects.

I can smoke a few grams of honey oil that's been made from bud that's over 15% THC and still feel just fine, yet (estimating) probably less than half a gram of JWH-018 nearly fucknin killed me!

btw people, I don't mean to bust your little bubbles, but there is no strain I'm aware of that is called "hydro"! I don't won't to hurt anyones feelings either, but some of you guys are fairly ignorant about plant genetics considering most of you are apparent gardeners.

The cannabinoid makeup of cannabis all comes down to the genetics of any one strain, it has nothing to do with the method used to grow the plant. The method used to grow the plant can effect taste, aroma and harvest size, but the potency and cannabinoid ratio comes down to genetics.

Didn't really expect to read that herald sun propaganda shit here.

Peace

[shruman]

"btw people, I don't mean to bust your little bubbles, but there is no strain I'm aware of that is called "hydro"! I don't won't to hurt anyones feelings either, but some of you guys are fairly ignorant about plant genetics considering most of you are apparent gardeners.

The cannabinoid makeup of cannabis all comes down to the genetics of any one strain, it has nothing to do with the method used to grow the plant. The method used to grow the plant can effect taste, aroma and harvest size, but the potency and cannabinoid ratio comes down to genetics.

Didn't really expect to read that herald sun propaganda shit here."

Obviously you did not understand my post.

Yes genetics govern the production of cannabinoids but the profile of those cannabinoids can change, like I said due to things like oxidisation & degradation over time. Surely you know THC breaks down to CBD?

Yes there is no 'hydro' strain but most hydro is indica/indica dom which usualy has a higher CBD to THC ratio.

Just beacause you do'nt understand is no reason to call people ignorant, actualy it may be the definition.

[SunChaser]

From my understanding THC breaks down to CBN, not CBD, which is why cannabis that's been quickly dried or is old tends to give you a headache. But thats kind of irrelevant when it comes to growing cannabis indoors compared to outdoors.

The other contradiction with the 'indoor is worse than outdoor argument' is that back in the sixties and seventies most cannabis was pure sativa, which usually has high THC content with very little CBD. Yet most strains people grow indoors today are indica/sativa hybrids with an intense couch lock influence, which indicates a high CBD content. So it makes no sense to say today's weed is sending everyone bonkers because of a low CBD content.

The only real problem is that back in the sixties when someone bought cannabis they knew what to expect since only sativa strains were usually going around. But now with all these hybrids around, no one really has a clue what to expect when they buy cannabis. For me personally, I like extremely psychedelic and up sativa dominated strains, they just make life feel so fresh and keep me entertained and motivated. But indica dominated strains make me lazy, hungry and depressed.

Yet someone who is prone to psychosis, is probably going to spin out on a potent sativa dominated strain, yet a indica dominated strain will probably stabilize there frame of mind and just allow them to flow.

If they just legalized herb and let people grow or buy strains of cannabis that suit there own brain chemistry, then we wouldn't have all these problems.

EDIT; btw shruman, although I don't agree with your post, I wasn't actually referring to you, lol.

Peace

Edited December 19, 2011 by jabez

[2Deep2Handle]

jabes...i was also under the impression that the oxidization of THC was to CBN not CBD. It is compared to CBD anyway (anti psychotic also) as well as a few mentions of it 'cancelling' the effects of THC....

Also agree first and foremost cannibinoid ratios are primarily genetic. But how late you leave the harvest, environmental factors like wind (artificial or natural affecting the oxidization process), curing process all contribute to the "type" of high, and the final outocome of ratios. so you are both right IMO.

The generalizations with hydro / bush are exactly that...generalisations, easier than explaining something i though we all knew about (again a gernalisation) hydro dominated indica or indica x sativa VS bush dominated sativa as mentioned.

|and because of one i must now look into this "idica being CBD/CBN higher than sativa"

shruman...that's why we are all posting here...to voice our opinions on plant related material, and accept the fact that a good enough scientific rebuttal may be provided to change mine/your opinions.

indica/sativa hybrids with an intense couch lock influence, which indicates a high CBD content. So it makes no sense to say today's weed is sending everyone bonkers because of a low CBD content.\

I tend to agree about the couch lock, but if it is true about the high CBD(or CBN from oxidation of higher number of trichromes in the first place) in indica. then you are most certainly right jabes and have now left me and at the drawing board with my bush / hydro thoughts.

Still tend to agree about synths being worse. And weighing or eyeballing half a gram of anyting from the JWH family is asking to have a massive anxiety attack. Im sure the recommended dose is MUCH smaller than that

[tronica]

We've just got over 200 completed responses to our Kronic Study. Thanks to everyone who has participated!

If you haven't already done so, I would really appreciate it if you could spare 20 minutes for research and to provide your opinions and experiences on this class of drugs:

http://kronicstudy.net

Results will be presented back to the community when the study is complete

[Shamanistic]

In my experience with synthetic cannabis I have found it to amplify greatly the negative side effects paranoia, anxiety for being just as high as I usually am. One friend I have really freaked out after smoking 3 grams of synthetic cannabis to himself and he can smoke 3 grams of natural cannabis by himself in the same period of time and be totally fine. I have never really felt any huge side effects smoking natural cannabis but after my experiences with synthetic cannabis, I'm staying with natural - it's got less side effects, long term effects of natural cannabis are a lot more understood than synthetic compounds etc.

Monica, I've been looking for a survey on synthetic cannabis for a while because I feel quite strongly that it is much more dangerous alternative to organic/natural cannabis so thank you for the opportunity to participate ;)

Well, personally I'm hoping it will show that these synthetics are used primarily as a cannabis alternative, because the law makes organic cannabis hard to obtain. Since organic cannabis has far less side effects, once again it would prove that prohibition creates more harm than the drug its actually trying to prohibit.

Peace

 

I fully agree.

[tronica]

Monica, I've been looking for a survey on synthetic cannabis for a while because I feel quite strongly that it is much more dangerous alternative to organic/natural cannabis so thank you for the opportunity to participate ;)

 

You're welcome

[myco]

We've just got over 200 completed responses to our Kronic Study. Thanks to everyone who has participated!

If you haven't already done so, I would really appreciate it if you could spare 20 minutes for research and to provide your opinions and experiences on this class of drugs:

http://kronicstudy.net

Results will be presented back to the community when the study is complete

 

well done tronica

look forward to seeing the results

[C_T]

This statement is completely untrue when it comes to toxic effects.

I can smoke a few grams of honey oil that's been made from bud that's over 15% THC and still feel just fine, yet (estimating) probably less than half a gram of JWH-018 nearly fucknin killed me!

btw people, I don't mean to bust your little bubbles, but there is no strain I'm aware of that is called "hydro"! I don't won't to hurt anyones feelings either, but some of you guys are fairly ignorant about plant genetics considering most of you are apparent gardeners.

The cannabinoid makeup of cannabis all comes down to the genetics of any one strain, it has nothing to do with the method used to grow the plant. The method used to grow the plant can effect taste, aroma and harvest size, but the potency and cannabinoid ratio comes down to genetics.

Didn't really expect to read that herald sun propaganda shit here.

Peace

 

half a gram of jwh = 500 solid sessions... what time period are you talking?

thats a fuckin lot man... way more potent than your oil.

Edited December 20, 2011 by C_T