Posted on 11/03/2014 4:12:12 PM PST by DBCJR
One of the chemists who designed synthetic cannabis for research purposes, John W. Huffman, PhD once said that he couldn’t imagine why anyone would try it recreationally. Because of its deadly toxicity, he said that those who tried it must be “idiots.” Taxpayer money created synthetic cannabis through this research.
Synthetic pot also goes by Spice, K-2, fake weed, Yucatan Fire, Bliss, Blaze, Skunk, Moon Rocks, etc. Synthetic cannabis, unlike pot, however, can cause a huge variety of symptoms, which can be severe: Agitation, vomiting, hallucination, paranoia, tremor, seizure, tachycardia, hypokalemia, chest pain, cardiac problems, stroke, kidney damage, acute psychosis, brain damage, and death.
Like the active ingredient in pot, THC, synthetic cannabis binds the CB1 receptor. But when it binds, it acts as a full agonist, rather than a partial agonist, meaning that it can activate a CB1 receptor on a brain cell with maximum efficacy, rather than only partially, as with THC.
Another issue with synthetic is its potency, which huge. “Its potency can be up to one hundred or more times greater than THC – that’s how much drug it takes to produce an effect,” says Paul Prather, PhD, professor of pharmacology and toxicology at the at University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.
A central reason that synthetic cannabis can produce such an enormous variety of side effects is likely because CB1 receptors are present in just about every brain region there is. When you have a strong-binding and long-lasting compound going to lots of different areas of the brain, you’re going to get some very bad effects.
Yasmin Hurd, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, Pharmacology and Systems Therapeutics, and Neuroscience at Mount Sinai Medical Center, says that the wide distribution of CB1 receptors in the brain is exactly why they’re so toxic. “Where they’re located is important – their presence in the hippocampus would be behind their memory effects; their presence in seizure initiation areas in the temporal cortex is why they lead to seizures.
And in the prefrontal cortex, this is probably why you see stronger psychosis with synthetic cannabinoids.” The cardiac, respiratory, and gastrointestinal effects probably come from the CB1 receptors in the brain stem. It might be any one of these that produces the greatest risk of death.
The demonstrative evidence that synthetic cannabis is a different from marijuana all together is that overdose with the drug looks totally different from an “overdose” with natural marijuana. “Clinically, they just don’t look like people who smoke marijuana,” says Lewis Nelson, MD, at NYU’s Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Medical Toxicology. “Pot users are usually interactive, mellow, funny. Everyone once in a while we see a bad trip with natural marijuana. But it goes away quickly. With people using synthetic, they look like people who are using amphetamines: they’re angry, sweaty, agitated.”
Whatever’s happening, he says, it may be more than just the replacement of THC with JWH. “It’s almost hard to imagine that it could be related to the partial vs. full agonist aspect of the drug.” Prather goes onto say, “What we’re finding from our research is that some of the metabolites of synthetic cannabis bind to the receptor just as well as the drug itself – this isn’t the case with THC. The synthetic metabolites seem to retain full activity relative to the parent compound. So the ability of our bodies to deactivate them may be decreased.” He also points out that what’s lacking in synthetic cannabis is cannabidiol, which is present in natural marijuana and appears to blunt some of the adverse actions of the THC.
Synthetic cannabis is made in underground labs, often in China, and probably elsewhere. The only consistent thing is that there’s no quality control in the formulation process. “Someone’s just kind of riffing off JWH,” says Lapoint. There are hundreds of different forms of JWH, and of other synthetic cannabinoids designed by different labs, and the next one is always waiting to go. “It only takes a grad school chemist level to pull it off,” he says.
So WTF did he design it for?
Synthetic “pot” isn’t pot - it contains no cannibinoids (don’t ask me how to correctly spell it).
I suspect that the “legal” alternative is far, far, far more dangerous than the semi-illegal stuff
“So WTF did he design it for?”
To study receptor sites in animals and in cell cultures, not intended for people. There are lots of similar experimental chemicals used by neurobiologists. The ones that make you high get synthesized in little labs and sold, without testing, to people.
Still. Seems like an irresponsible bit if research to me.
To study neurotransmitter receptor function.
Always go natural, baby. ;-)
I have wondered why as well.
This article explains why it is a type of synthetic pot.
Are we to do no research with potential down sides?
The article didn’t really explain why synthetic cannabis was invented other than the vague “research purposes.” What have they researched using it? Any useful results? Why and how would researching a synthetic compound be relevant to the natural compound?
There is a researcher, David Nichols, who developed lots of probes for brain receptors and brain chemical modulators. he has to publish his results so that other researchers can learn.
He regrets some of the things he has made- when he made one series of agonist receptor probes, he had NO idea that idiots would copy the synthesis and sell the stuff. One series, the “dragonfly” series, wound up killing people.
At the time though, he and his staff were not thinking, gee I bet this will get you high for a week!
Like making a skinning knife then finding out some serial killer preferred it- good people don’t think like bad people do.
So why not just use the real McCoy? It's everywhere.
From the article I posted:
“Abstract
The N-1 alkyl side chain of the aminoalkylindole analogues (AAI) has been implicated as one of a three-point interaction with
the cannabinoid CB1 receptor. In this study, the morpholinoethyl of WIN 55,212-2 was replaced with carbon chains of varying
lengths ranging from a methyl to heptyl group. Additional groups were added to the naphthoyl and the C2 positions of the
molecule. These structural changes revealed that high affinity binding to the CB1 and CB2 receptors requires an alkyl chain length
of at least three carbons with optimum binding to both receptors occurring with a five carbon side chain. An alkyl chain of 3–6
carbons is sufficient for high affinity binding; however, extension of the chain to a heptyl group results in a dramatic decrease in
binding at both receptors. The unique structure of the cannabimimetic indoles provides a useful tool to define the ligand-receptor
interaction at both cannabinoid receptors and to refine proposed pharmacophore models. © 2000 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.
All rights reserved.”
They are playing with the structures to learn about the receptors. They’ll use this to design drugs that interact with brain receptors in new and controllable ways. Maybe a non-narcotic pain med that works better then morpheine.
Thanks. That’s far too technical for me and more importantly doesn’t fix the flaws in the original article which is what I was criticizing.
>Still. Seems like an irresponsible bit if research to me.
It’s actually very important research, as many of the receptors cause chemical reactions that could be very helpful with people that have mental issues (Some chemicals in cannabis oil greatly reduce childhood seizures).
The synthetic weed aspect is a pretty wild frontier. In the late 2000’s JWH and derivatives got isolated, and many of the ones that have reactions like THC, JWH-018, JWH-220, etc. got banned around 2010. As the isolation and banning continue, the synthetics get farther and farther away reaction-wise from THC. The stuff that they’re spraying on synthetic weed is DRASTICALLY different than the stuff sprayed on it even two years ago. The synthetic weed companies are basically importing the chemical en masse from Chinese labs, spraying the stuff on inert plant material, and praying that some dumb kid doesn’t kill himself.
It can cause death? What doesn’t?
What have they researched using it?
Details of how the brain works, by blocking certain signal receptors, that are control points or sockets for inputs.
Any useful results?
Yes, they can block specific brain “sockets” in a controllable way, what socket, and how much it is blocked. They can then design specific chemical tools.
Why and how would researching a synthetic compound be relevant to the natural compound?
The natural compound is what it is, and does what it does. By modifying the natural molecule you can figure out how it works, and make a better one. In the case of the article I lined, they change the length of a side chain and get more, or less, binding to a specific socket.
Say you have a key that works in a lock. By using a lockpick you can figure out how the lock works, and may either find a “master key” or find out how locks and keys work in detail, or find a better key (not the best analogy but close).
I’m not a pot smoker but just out of curiosity: how easy is it to distinguish the real from the synthetic. I don’t want kids smoking any of it but I hope they can steer clear of the obvious danger here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.