Sciencemadness Discussion Board - La FDA bans 5-chemicals

La FDA bans 5-chemicals

The WiZard is In - 12-3-2011 at 16:45

http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr030111.html

djh
---
Byda during the Clinton Admin. the US FDA to appease liberals —
declared that a white #10 envelope was a regulated medical
device and thus subject to their rules.

The California coastal commission declared that fireworks are
a structure and thus the commission can regulate them.

Never trust anyone over 30 . Perhaps. Never trust a bureaucrat - for sure that be.

mewrox99 - 12-3-2011 at 23:04

[sarcasm]Big Surprise there![/sarcasm]

[Edited on 13-3-2011 by mewrox99]

arsphenamine - 13-3-2011 at 08:18

Consider what it is that they banned -- somewhat toxic synthetics that came out of cannabimimetic research. The ban seems a tolerably prudent response in order to avoid a public health problem, as in, it's safer to ban the compounds than to pay for the aftermath.

Following links, you get the federal mandate which lists the pertinent compounds.

Quote:

The substances are 1-pentyl-3-(1- naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018), 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073), 1- [2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200), 5-(1,1- dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497), and 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol; CP-47,497 C8 homologue).

These are only 5 of JW Huffman's 450 compound long oeuvre, but a few quick searches on naphthoylindoles and Huffman clarifies matters.

UPDATE: The compounds are banned from import as well. A quick search on alibaba.com lists a lot of chinese chemical suppliers willing to sell the finished compound. Unlike amateur controlled substance cooks, these suppliers state purity.

It looks like these "spice" purveyors didn't even bother to synthesize the stuff themselves.

[Edited on 13-3-2011 by arsphenamine]

entropy51 - 13-3-2011 at 08:23

Quote:

La FDA bans 5-chemicals

Your link says the DEA banned them. Not the same agency.

hissingnoise - 13-3-2011 at 09:21

Quote:

Oh yeah, can't you just hear those names slip effortlessly from the lips of the geniuses in the DEA!?!

mr.crow - 13-3-2011 at 09:37

"wrongly equate the products' ‘legal’ retail availability with being ‘safe’"

That kind of pisses me off, they equate legal with LEGAL. The influx of crappy designer drugs recently is because people don't want to break the law. Instead they have to turn themselves into guinea pigs for knockoff versions of real drugs.

Of course I still think they should be banned

hissingnoise - 13-3-2011 at 09:38

The upside is - the more highfalutin names they have to contend with the better!
Their peanut brains will become "overloaded" with jawbreakers and they'll implode with a very dull thud!

hissingnoise - 13-3-2011 at 09:50

Quote:

Of course I still think they should be banned

The thing in most need of banning is the DEA!

arsphenamine - 13-3-2011 at 11:02

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise

Quote:

The substances are 1-pentyl-3-(1- naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018), ... ad nauseum

Oh yeah, can't you just hear those names slip effortlessly from the lips of the geniuses in the DEA!?!

Heh!

It's going to be "JWH-018" in written reports and simply "18" in conversation.

hissingnoise - 13-3-2011 at 11:11

Yeah, yeah, we know, but there's always room for complete cock-ups!
Hopefully . . .

Magic Muzzlet - 13-3-2011 at 15:40

The kids just couldn't take the utter saturation of their receptors, and thought they could handle smoking large amounts.

then they freaked out, went to hospital etc etc...
Nothing new here.
The smoking blends are a bad idea though, I actually think they should be banned unless they are able to state how much actives they contain per gram of plant material.
This is not a big deal though, as said above there are hundreds of other compounds that are active. whatever, DEA.

[Edited on 13-3-2011 by Magic Muzzlet]

497 - 12-4-2011 at 16:08

All that banning them is going to do is encourage further development of analogues. And some of the future ones are bound to be more harmful (and potent) than the current ones.. There is no end in sight. When will they see that prohibitions end up causing much worse problems than the prohibited drug would if it were controlled and taught to be used responsibly? I can't believe the US didn't learn its lesson from the alcohol prohibition.
Such a huge fraction of the harm that illegal drugs cause (and paradoxically the justification for their prohibition) is from either their inconsistent/poor purity or a lack of any education about how to deal with them safely. Yet both major causes of harm are only present because of the prohibition and could be easily eliminated by legalization and education.
Did anyone ever wonder if they were creating a self fulfilling prophecy by saturating every school aged teenager with propaganda that all drugs are bad, cannot be used safely, and somehow take away your capability to control and be responsible for your own actions?? Did anyone every try teaching that drugs, like any other powerful object (guns, cars, etc) can cause great harm if used irresponsibly BUT that if they are understood they can be used relatively safely and maybe even benefit some? So frustrating..
And it works: http://healthland.time.com/2010/11/23/portugals-drug-experie...
Most interesting to me is the possibility for a near complete elimination of homegrown meth labs in the US if it were legalized. I think this would have a huge beneficial effect on amateur/private chemistry by eliminating or reducing the ridiculous chemical restrictions caused by them..

[Edited on 13-4-2011 by 497]

quicksilver - 13-4-2011 at 07:48

The legislation contends with variety analogs by using verbiage such as "chemical structures similar to, or designed to have the effect of"...... The basic reason why alcohol had been legalized is the tax revenue mechanism had actually been in place. A structured taxation agenda was easily worked into the manufacturing process. Money is the deciding element of legality.
With drugs there is an impediment in that the mechanism is not in place already and taxation methods on a new form of consumer goods is not as easily implemented as one would think. Two (or more) competing force are at work here. One is the oversight element (FDA) another is the taxation element. For alcohol, tobacco, & firearms, that's already in existence. Drugs have many complications if they were to be taken from a black-market arena. Enormous amounts of money are provided to various agencies with no Congressional oversight. A great many jobs exist in this "war on drugs" The DEA is actually an international and national intelligence organization with a streamlined mode of operation that would be difficult to replace. This is a complex issue, that has a decided "domino effect" if sweeping changes are affected.

497 - 13-4-2011 at 08:25

"chemical structures similar to, or designed to have the effect of"

Heh, isn't this reminiscent of the analogue act? From what I understood it was considered to be too vague to be very useful to actually prosecute anyone with. Would this not also apply to the quoted legislation?

I don't see how drugs are fundamentally different than alcohol (other than the larger variety of them) when it comes to regulation or taxation. Its true that there is no manufacturing infrastructure to tax right now, but would that not quickly appear if legalization occurred? Considering the potential amounts of money to be gained by manufacturers, retailers, and governments it seems like ample incentive.. Not to mention lower deaths from overdoses and other symptoms of addiction, lower health care costs, and enormous savings from the reduction of around half of the current prison population!
Like any war, there is a lot of profiteering going on by some of those who wage it. That seems like all the more reason to put an end to it.

[Edited on 13-4-2011 by 497]

quicksilver - 13-4-2011 at 12:25

The fascinating thing here is that from a legalistic perspective, the level of the ability to prosecute on analog act verbiage alone is not always at issue. Once the guys' in the courtroom he's generally toast in that there is most often padding to the prosecution's efforts to make his case. Indeed, one of the thrusts of any good Prosecutor's case presentation is a plea bargain that nets him a conviction.....So...if the idiosyncrasies of the case don't reach merit on something like the analog act, the fellows' still being prosecuted for possession with intent, or attempt to manufacture. He doesn't even need to meet the level of having List chemicals in possession as the ATTEMPT is prosecutable. It's similar to selling phoney drugs. A good prosecutor can make a case behind a placebo sales, etc. To get that however he needs to meet certain requirements and have run his mouth. That takes a great deal of case prep and money. So they save that for the big fish.

In narcotics prosecution the key is to get enough charges so the guy is choking for air. He will plead out to lesser charges and the State (or Fed) still wins. This is very similar to tax fraud. If you're in court from a single year's mis-filing, that prosecutor is wasting his time; that's why the Fed will bargain to get SOME money back on a single instance. HOWEVER, if they have multiple violations; there is where they have a serious amount of leverage.

Al Capone didn't go down from one year's mis-filing.....he got real time in federal prison from multiple charges. The idea is to have "padding".

However, please understand that I am not (from personal opinion) a supporter of the "war on drugs": in any manner. I (personally) believe it has done an enormous amount of harm & frankly, a disservice to the country as a whole. Just my opinion but I believe that there are in place a great many factors as to WHY this issues continues. But the greatest reason is money & access to intelligence. Once the DEA crossed over to a intelligence platform from the old Bureau of Narcotics, the stage was set for this to continue for reasons OUTSIDE that of public health.

[Edited on 13-4-2011 by quicksilver]

497 - 13-4-2011 at 13:09

"So they save that for the big fish"
Yeah, that was kind of what I meant. I should have said not very useful to prosecute many people with..
This issue is so frustrating. They continue to wage a costly war that by nature can never be won in the name of public health while everyone involved knows it has nothing to do with public health. Tricky bastards, they knew that with the right propaganda they could easily form public opinion in a way that makes it political suicide for any politician trying to stop the war. That's the ultimate way to keep a war going... How can it be stopped? It seems obvious that it is not sustainable.

MagicJigPipe - 13-4-2011 at 20:44

Anyone who still believes that public health is a good reason to ban drugs is apparently incapable of critical thought. I think it says something that I, someone who was completely for the prohibition of all drugs except alcohol when I was younger but, as I grew up and I started reading more, and my ability for critical thought beyond what I was indoctrinated with grew, my opinion changed to thinking that all drugs should be legal even if the public health risk just slightly grew. I think there is more risk to public happiness and well-being with the current system in place than can be caused by any type of drug. I have seen just about as much pain, suffering and general unhappiness caused directly or otherwise by drug PROHIBITION as by the drugs themselves. Go read your fake-ass reports and quote some journals saying drugs cause addiction and are toxic--shit, even go downtown and look at the junkies and make misinformed judgements on why those people are in that position. But until you've seen what's really going on time and time again first hand you don't really understand why prohibition is one of the main sources if not the main source of crushed lives, crying children (oh yeah, I used that) and unhappiness in this country.

Some people benifit from going to jail. Most, however, go to jail and go right back to using afterwards. Then they inevitably get caught again and the cycle repeats ad nauseum. These people's lives, though less happy than the rest of us, would be better if they could just do pure and relatively safe drugs in private. Often these people are even more depressed while sober. There is just something wrong with them to where they must use drugs in order to feel "right". The ones that can learn to do it in moderation have the problem somewhat solved--but the illegality of it turns these otherwise non-self-destructive (more than average) productive citizens into wards of the state that often must resort to other crimes in order simply to feel normal and stay productive (not to mention giving a large portion of their income inevitabley to those violent cartels). Not to mention a lot of people would do less drugs less often if they knew for sure that they could get them whenever they want. I know that sounds weird but it definitely exists as a phenomenon. It has something to do with novelty and realizing that even if you don't "get high" right now you can always do it later. If your next acquisition is uncertain you can't really plan for it and it just contributes to a mindset of instant gratification. This even goes for some people quitting drugs. If they know they could feel better at any time it would be easier for them to go longer without using because they don't have to go ahead and buy the drugs now because they might not be available later.

If even one innocent person is raped by our laws when they are working as they were designed then there is something fucked up about that law. How the fuck can we justify screwing innocent people for the sake of our "public health"? That's the most selfish bullshit EVER. This shit turns otherwise good people into raving psychotics with a thirst for the blood of the innocent (the police and policy-makers). Often prohibitionists have the moral fortitude of a mid-16th century English monarch and they actually believe that the War On Drugs makes everyone's life better. Yes, some. But more often than not it destroys lives.

To give a good example of how absolutely brainwashed and morally bankrupt Americans can be when it comes to combatting drugs look at the "War On Drugs" in Northern Mexico. If both Mexico and the United States made the most popular drugs legal (and began providing ways for the public to meet the demands of the consumers) the murder rate in both countries (especially Mexico) would go down exponentially with almost 100% certainty. But what's more important than thousands of dead people every year JUST IN MEXICO ALONE? Our so-called "public health". And we can't even demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt if it even would have a net negative effect on public health!

Is there anyone here that is believes in drug prohibition and also believes that we should be able to eat anything we want?

Furthermore, I don't think it's just a coincidence that many if not most people on this site are at least skeptical of prohibition (I'm sure the critical thinking skills of the people here are above average compared to the general population).

EDIT

I'm even willing to admit that some drugs should be illegal or at least heavily regulated. At the very least marijuana should be legal or alcohol made illegal if for nothing else but consistency. I think the fact that alcohol is legal gives much evidence to the fact that this is more about culture and pushing so-called morals onto other people. One of the ultimate hypocritical moments is when a cop throws an otherwise law-abiding citizen in jail, subsequently destroying that person's family and alienating him/her from their children and then goes home and gets drunk.

I will say without any doubt that anyone who supports marijuana prohibition (possibly even all drug prohibition) and drinks alcohol is a hypocrite to the highest degree. I know that is most people and I don't care. The truth is the truth. I can be friends with these people and have respect for them in other areas but that doesn't change my above-stated opinion.

[Edited on 4-14-2011 by MagicJigPipe]

quicksilver - 14-4-2011 at 08:39

One of the most potent barriers to altering existing laws is that there is an infrastructure that supports them. This in turn stands to reason where an addict will act in a socially inappropriate manner to obtain said drugs. One feeds the other.
The junky steals from virtually anyone, does anything, etc to maintain his/her habit. This in-turn justifies the existing laws by creating negative stereo-types & in fact has an great deal of truth to the condition via social structure & activities of the user. What's more we have a "treatment industry" that thrives on this. Private Psychiatric hospitals have for decades had a wing which would provide a "drug & alcohol rehab". Private (& some public) hospital administrations can make enormous amounts of capital from this agenda. Everything from book sales to hospital census padding thrive from the status quo.

To make any inroads here, more money would have to be provided and an unwilling, economically stretched public does not have this as a priority, especially when socially inappropriate behavior is at the fore-front of the public's picture of the "drug user".
To make matters worse, we would be eliminating jobs (drug enforcement) which now have moved from a less valuable area of the old Bureau of Narcotics to a new format that is a valuable intelligence arm that operates both on foreign soil and domestically. It is intrenched in many differing areas: a part of our overall social structure, etc.

Additionally, the public has a very negative stereotype of the drug user. We have the "Charlie Sheen" stereotype in our face every five minutes! Who would really even consider a potential sacrifice in terms of money, social adjustment, & political risk for such a thing? To play the "Devil's Advocate" it's easy to see the risks outweigh the rewards (as all the "rewards" are potential & tough to prove). It would be an up-hill battle for the least publicly praise-worthy of society.

The gut reaction (IMO) would be something of; "why should I take risks, use funding, or alter society for a potential benefit when the risk is obvious".
Many people are aware that putting a person in prison for a "crime" like simple possession is a disservice to society, not to mention the individual - yet to prove that changing such a thing is difficult because of the "slippery slope" potential. Many would not have a problem altering marijuana laws but what of other drugs? Here is where the "hard sell" begins. This would occur because the level of positive change may only be felt when drug laws as a whole are altered to bring this from a law enforcement agenda to a medical agenda. And that is really effective when no dividing line exists in terms of what someone wants to put into their body.
The problem becomes complex as the result of [using] one drug obviously is not the same as another; yet the concept of self determination is not so exclusive.

[Edited on 14-4-2011 by quicksilver]

497 - 15-4-2011 at 10:08

I fully agree with you. It seems like a very worthy thing to endeavor to change.. For both the good of amateur chemistry and public health in general. If I wasn't so much more interested in chemistry maybe I'd go into politics and try to make some kind of difference... Although on second though politicians may not really be in the best position to make these changes. I don't know.. God damn it's almost too depressing to think about for extended periods.

hissingnoise - 16-4-2011 at 03:29

Quote:

God damn it's almost too depressing to think about for extended periods.

The word "almost" is superfluous here . . .

anotheronebitesthedust - 17-4-2011 at 13:37

This documentary sums up the war on drugs very well.

Exile Nation Project
http://vimeo.com/20896209

Ephoton - 17-4-2011 at 21:56

I dont think these indoles are too hard to make for a lot of us.
some of them were not very toxic either from memory and had
much better anti cancer properties than THC.

[Edited on 18-4-2011 by Ephoton]

arsphenamine - 17-4-2011 at 22:41

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver

One of the most potent barriers to altering existing laws is that there is an infrastructure that supports them.

Yup. Most economists, when pressed, estimate the illicit drug trade at 10% of the world economy. In the case of Wall Street finance, it is an immense source of liquid funds when laundered -- effectively legal for named entities on the NY Stock Exchange.

That's some very high dollar infrastructure, and the US Secretary of State, during a visit in Mexico, let slip that drug legalization wouldn't work because there's too much money in it.

The original reasons for criminalizing drug use were small-minded, intent on social control. Like any laws that outlaw ordinary behavior, the prohibition generates big business.

jon - 23-4-2011 at 12:59

we all need to make a case for the childeren's future it's imperative we make the world a better place for our childeren to live in.
as responsible adults anything less is selfishness.
(begin rant now speaker of the house.)