

Chemical Change in Synthetic Marijuana Suspected of Causing Illnesses - samclemens
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2015/04/27/402052478/chemical-change-in-synthetic-marijuana-suspected-of-causing-illnesses

======
wjnc
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)

~~~
Uberphallus
> 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.

~~~
tyho
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...](https://www.erowid.org/library/books_online/pihkal/pihkal036.shtml)

~~~
dEnigma
>LSD is known to be safe in at least 1000x the normal dose

I'd love to see a citation for that

~~~
tyho
[http://www.lycaeum.org/research/researchpdfs/1977_griggs_1.p...](http://www.lycaeum.org/research/researchpdfs/1977_griggs_1.pdf)

[https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_death.shtml](https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_death.shtml)

Ok, well maybe not 'safe', but people have taken that amount and survived. It
is certainly not something I would recommend.

~~~
dEnigma
Thank you, I saw the erowid page before I posted and only read up to "more
than 100 times a normal moderate dose of LSD" before I asked for a citation.
Well, at least we know one shouldn't take 3200x the normal dose ;)

------
s_baby
This is a marijuana/cannabinoid analog since these compounds don't exist in
marijuana. Synthetic marijuana would be something like Marinol. It's a
misleading title for someone who doesn't know the difference.

------
fabian2k
Every small change in a molecule's structure can drastically change biological
activity. And there is no way to predict what biological effects any change
has in terms of side effects. You pretty much have to treat such a modified
drug as an entirely new molecule.

~~~
Nursie
Yup.

The problem with synthetic cannabinoids in particular is that (because of
their relative popularity compared to other "Research Chemicals" or "Legal
Highs") they get banned quickly so the makers have to find a new way to skirt
around the law.

This has resulted in lots of molecules being picked up from research
literature that have never been tried in a living creature, let alone studied
in humans. And some of the newest ones are totally off-piste, tweaks and
modifications made to these already untested molecules such that cannabinoids
are produced which can't even be found in the literature.

There's also the drive to make stronger and stronger synthetic 'weed' and that
causes problems too. It's not really possible to properly OD on the real
thing. It's easy with synthetics.

------
ghshephard
[http://www.whiskeystill.net/blogs/whiskey-still-co-
blog/6180...](http://www.whiskeystill.net/blogs/whiskey-still-co-
blog/6180820-blindness-and-poisoning-from-drinking-moonshine-myth-or-fact)

------
jgrowl
Vice did a show on synthetic drugs recently. This isn't the full episode but
includes parts:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLD3AKoyV5Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLD3AKoyV5Q)

------
Torgo
A guy in my church is a doctor, and a couple years ago they had to treat a
teenager for temporary blindness because of this garbage. It is a sad irony
that if marijuana had been legal, it would have been safer.

------
madaxe_again
Frankly, sounds like someone is selling meth as "synthetic weed". Making
people chemically dependent sure is a great way to boost repeat custom.

Something something legalisation and regulation, demand, and supply.

~~~
tyho
Nobody does that. That would be insanely stupid. The product these people are
selling is legal. Why on earth would they add a Schedule 1 compound to their
legal mix? Why would they do that when that compound is very expensive
compared to the product they are selling.

The claims of dealers lacing softer drugs with harder ones is classic DEA FUD.
Drug dealers are generally not the smarted bunch but they know not to cut a
cheap drug with an expensive one.

That being said, a common DEA lie was that cocaine was being cut with rat
poison. This actually started happening in South Africa where it caused many
deaths because the South African drug dealers thought that the Americans were
doing it when in fact it was just invented by the DEA to scare people off of
coke.

What possible evidence do you have to make you think that somebody put meth in
there?

~~~
madaxe_again
With this specifically - none - but I have bought weed in the past that was
quite definitely adulterated with something that ruined a game of poker.
Everyone sweating bullets and shaking. Sore jaw in the morning.

So - I know that the "broken glass in X" is DEA FUD, but idiot street dealers
don't necessarily think in the same terms as you and I.

Also - if you're synthesising your own chems, cost isn't an issue, you're just
buying reagents.

