1. Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 4 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.

Congress Agrees to Add 26 Synthetic Drugs to Controlled Substances Act

  1. hookedonhelping
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]DEA NEWS: Congress Agrees to Add 26 Synthetic Drugs to Controlled Substances Act[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today commended House and Senate negotiators for agreeing on legislation to control 26 synthetic drugs under the Controlled Substances Act. These drugs include those commonly found in products marketed as “K2” and “Spice.”[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The addition of these chemicals to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act will be included as part of S. 3187, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act. Schedule I substances are those with a high potential for abuse; have no medical use in treatment in the United States; and lack an accepted safety for use of the drug. [/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In addition to scheduling the 26 drugs, the new law would double the length of time a substance may be temporarily placed in schedule I (from 18 to 36 months). In addition to explicitly naming 26 substances, the legislation creates a new definition for “cannabamimetic agents,” creating criteria by which similar chemical compounds are controlled. [/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In recent years, a growing number of dangerous products have been introduced into the U.S. marketplace. Products labeled as “herbal incense” have become especially popular, especially among teens and young adults. These products consist of plant material laced with synthetic cannabinoids which, when smoked, mimic the delirious effects of THC, the psychoactive ingredient of marijuana. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, more than 100 such substances have been synthesized and identified to date. DEA has used its emergency scheduling authority to place in schedule I several of these harmful chemicals.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]Newly developed drugs, particularly from the “2C family” (dimethoxyphenethylamines), are generally referred to as synthetic psychedelic/hallucinogens. 2C-E caused the recent death of a 19 year-old in Minnesota. [/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The substances added to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act also include 9 different 2C chemicals, and 15 different synthetic cannabanoids.[/SIZE][/FONT]
    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]
    The American Association of Poison Control Centers reported that they received 6,959 calls related to synthetic marijuana in 2011, up from 2,906 in 2010.

    Citation: DEA website, press releases.

    Well it appears there will be a shit load of new RC's coming to humanity soon.. compliments of prohibition! Insane world we live in.. er, country.


  1. syntheticdave
    Congress is retarded, like all of the chemists and vendors and even users say "You keep banning them, Well keep making new ones" I say bring it on Congress your never going to win the possibility's are endless and a smart chemist with the proper supplies can easily take a banned compound tweak it very slightly on several different parts of the molecules chain and have a completely different non banned set of compounds. I laugh when i see this because they are never going to win.
  2. Tech House
    Special request: if someone gets access to, and posts, the list of the 26 substances, it would be most appreciated.

    I'm looking for info on what the article refers to as “2C family” (dimethoxyphenethylamines) but cannot find a list of which compounds are in that class.

    Also, if the US were to legalize marijuana, would that affect laws pertaining to other cannabinoids? It seems to me that if the synthetics are more dangerous than THC then that is further reason to legalize.
  3. Alfa
    Sooner or later we will see federal bans on anything that acts on cannabinoid receptors or has a similar action to THC, amphetamines, psychedelics, etc, etc.
    Thats the unavoidable result of this cat and mouse game.

    Surely its also riling up government officials like a swarm of angry hornets. At some point the government will no longer care what hammer they squash the research chemical scene with.
  4. syntheticdave
    Hopefully by that time the'll be new hybrids that do not fall under any banned classes.
  5. rickster999
    Tech-House, 2C-E and 2C-I were on the list that I know of, plus from the report it says nine in all now. I am concerned about “cannabamimetic agents,” and their scope of view. Because my friend JWH-210 skirted again. Or so it seems so far.
  6. rickster999
    Well, I couldn't find the list. But the DEA department is tooting it's horn. I just read through congresses transgressions today and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. LOL They haven't passed it yet, could be tomorrow? If it is, you have 30 days.
  7. stryder09
    If I knew how to delete my posts, I would delete the one above this...

    Here is the correct link and text.


    SEC. 1151. SHORT TITLE.

    • This subtitle may be cited as the ‘Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012’.

    • (a) Cannabimimetic Agents- Schedule I, as set forth in section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
      ‘(d)(1) Unless specifically exempted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation which contains any quantity of cannabimimetic agents, or which contains their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation.
      ‘(2) In paragraph (1):
      • ‘(A) The term ‘cannabimimetic agents’ means any substance that is a cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1 receptor) agonist as demonstrated by binding studies and functional assays within any of the following structural classes:
        • ‘(i) 2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol with substitution at the 5-position of the phenolic ring by alkyl or alkenyl, whether or not substituted on the cyclohexyl ring to any extent.
          ‘(ii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)indole or 3-(1-naphthylmethane)indole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted on the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl or naphthyl ring to any extent.
          ‘(iii) 3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the pyrrole ring, whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthoyl ring to any extent.
          ‘(iv) 1-(1-naphthylmethylene)indene by substitution of the 3-position of the indene ring, whether or not further substituted in the indene ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the naphthyl ring to any extent.
          ‘(v) 3-phenylacetylindole or 3-benzoylindole by substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring, whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent, whether or not substituted on the phenyl ring to any extent.
        ‘(B) Such term includes--
        • ‘(i) 5-(1,1-dimethylheptyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (CP-47,497);
          ‘(ii) 5-(1,1-dimethyloctyl)-2-[(1R,3S)-3-hydroxycyclohexyl]-phenol (cannabicyclohexanol or CP-47,497 C8-homolog);
          ‘(iii) 1-pentyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-018 and AM678);
          ‘(iv) 1-butyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-073);
          ‘(v) 1-hexyl-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-019);
          ‘(vi) 1-[2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl]-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-200);
          ‘(vii) 1-pentyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (JWH-250);
          ‘(viii) 1-pentyl-3-[1-(4-methoxynaphthoyl)]indole (JWH-081);
          ‘(ix) 1-pentyl-3-(4-methyl-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-122);
          ‘(x) 1-pentyl-3-(4-chloro-1-naphthoyl)indole (JWH-398);
          ‘(xi) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(1-naphthoyl)indole (AM2201);
          ‘(xii) 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-3-(2-iodobenzoyl)indole (AM694);
          ‘(xiii) 1-pentyl-3-[(4-methoxy)-benzoyl]indole (SR-19 and RCS-4);
          ‘(xiv) 1-cyclohexylethyl-3-(2-methoxyphenylacetyl)indole (SR-18 and RCS-8); and
          ‘(xv) 1-pentyl-3-(2-chlorophenylacetyl)indole (JWH-203).’.
      (b) Other Drugs- Schedule I of section 202(c) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(c)) is amended in subsection (c) by adding at the end the following:

      • ‘(18) 4-methylmethcathinone (Mephedrone).
        ‘(19) 3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone (MDPV).
        ‘(20) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-ethylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-E).
        ‘(21) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-methylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-D).
        ‘(22) 2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-C).
        ‘(23) 2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-I).
        ‘(24) 2-[4-(Ethylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-2).
        ‘(25) 2-[4-(Isopropylthio)-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl]ethanamine (2C-T-4).
        ‘(26) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxyphenyl)ethanamine (2C-H).
        ‘(27) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-nitro-phenyl)ethanamine (2C-N).
        ‘(28) 2-(2,5-Dimethoxy-4-(n)-propylphenyl)ethanamine (2C-P).’.

    • Section 201(h)(2) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 811(h)(2)) is amended--
      • (1) by striking ‘one year’ and inserting ‘2 years’; and
        (2) by striking ‘six months’ and inserting ‘1 year’.

    • Section 401(b)(1)(C) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(C)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘Any mandatory minimum term of imprisonment required to be imposed under this subparagraph shall not apply with respect to any controlled substance added to schedule I by the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012.’.
    Passed the Senate May 24, 2012.
  8. stryder09
    So, we have conflicting numbers. The original act from 2011 was more exhaustive in explicitly banned substances, but the list of drugs included in the S.3187 Food and Drug Admistration Safety and Innovation Act includes far less. Specifically, the number of cathinones in S.3187 are fewer. Not sure why.
  9. stryder09
    JWH-210 isn't explicitly named, but it would controlled under the cannabimimetic definition - naphthoylindoles classification...after all, JWH-210 is JWH-018 with an ethyl group attached to the 4 position of the naphthoyl region. AND it has established binding affinities at CB1 and CB2.
  10. ellisd
    Let's assume that this happens, what impact would that have on any legitimate research on possible medicines that would be beneficial to the human race? It's becoming clear to me that some of these Designer Drugs/Research Chemicals have the basis for some actually legitimate research and by simply putting a blanket ban on anything that activates a receptor or [?] mimics an illegal is just going to cause more confusion and hinder the possible benefits that could come of these drugs as medicine or whatever.
  11. makin
    The Cops and the DEA win every time

    the definition of prohibition should be job security.

    As long as these clowns can keep congress running around in circles pretending to make meaningfull legislation they all win. After the bill passes everyone will scream for extra money to enforce it and the money will flow.
  12. stryder09
    Can these research facilities acquire controlled substances/DEA licenses so that they can work with them? I only know our rules for a private testing lab and we have our DEA licenses.
  13. hookedonhelping
    Im curious how the government can be so quick to deem these 26 relatively new compounds, as well as "cannabamimetic agents" to have no medical use. Have all these studies been done that we don't know of to support this? If so that is very impressive given that many were unheard of until recently.
  14. salgoud
    Alfa, in Colorado they all ready have a broad law as this. It states that if a drug (no specific drug) acts on the CB1 or CB2 receptors they are classified as a homologs of synthetic cannainoids and are banned in Colorado: (Thus any drug that binds to the CB1 or CB2 receptors are banned, without a name for the drug or having to be stated in the list of drugs that are banned.)


    11-SB-134 enacted into law June 3, 2011 by Governor Gary Hickenlooper. This is not the whole bill, just what concerns you and many others:

    "Any chemical compound chemically synthesized and either 1) has been demonstrated to have binding activity at one or more cannabinoid receptors; or 2) is a chemical analog or isomer of a compound that has been demonstrated to have binding activity at one or more cannabinoid receptors. Includes, but is not limited to: HU-210; HU-211/dexanabinol; JWH-018; JWH-073; JWH-081; JWH-200; JWH-250; CP 47,497 and homologues." Salvia Divinorm is included in the ban.

    Colorado legislature passed a bill in June 2011 banning any compound that binds with the CB1 or CB2 receptors. Although the bill doesn't name every single cannabinoid, be careful ordering or possessing anything you know to be a cannabinoid. Law enforcement is actively making examples of retailers and consumers alike. The entire 11-SB-134 can by viewed: http://www.leg.state.co.us/Clics/Cl...B0983E358725780800801229?open&file=134_01.pdf

  15. Shampoo
    I think that you are missing the point here. If they ban a drug that acts in a certain way in the brain, or biologically, then they are banning the entire concept of psychoactivity that it results in. For instance, if they ban all cannabinoid receptor agonists, then they are essentially banning the ability to achieve that altered state of mind. There are not "hybrids" which will allow one to get around this. Simply put, they could decide to ban any substance that causes an altered state of mind, which is not approved for medical use. They would not be the first country to do this.

    Your arrogant attitude that "You keep banning them, Well keep making new ones" is the exact attitude that will cause them to do this. And your concept that "a smart chemist with the proper supplies can easily take a banned compound tweak it very slightly on several different parts of the molecules chain and have a completely different non banned set of compounds" would be nullified by a ban on the type of biological activity that is achieved by a molecule, as opposed to a ban on the molecule itself.

    Instead of kicking and screaming like a child, thrusting arrogance in the face of the government, the RC scene needs to take this as a wake-up call that should have hit them years ago; it's time to start acting responsibly, stop marketing drugs like candy, start doing proper research and avoid knee-jerk reactions. Without very, very serious reform in the immediate future, The United States is destined to end up as another country in which everything psychoactive aside from alcohol, tobacco and pharmaceuticals is banned.

    Keep laughing and they'll win. Stop laughing, start thinking and acting responsibly, and maybe they won't.


    Yes, just in the same way that they can acquire research licenses to use cocaine, heroin, and LSD. It is a lengthy, involved process, but possible.

    The question of medical value is determined at the time of drug legislation. If at the time a drug is challenged for legality there is no proof of medical use, then it is deemed as such. However, if licensed laboratories can find a medical use for it, it may be moved to schedule II. Not that that changes much, after all, drugs like cocaine are Schedule II and it doesn't make them any more accessible to the public.
  16. YIPMAN
  17. stryder09
    I think where this piece of legislation fails (or succeeds depending on your viewpoint), is that many of these compounds starting to emerge or those that have emerged have no binding data or activity data to date.
  18. salgoud
    No, the reason they did it is because there is over 450 or more synthetic cannabinoids. They have already been shown to attach to the CB1 or CB2 receptors. I believe they wrote it like that to shorten the Bill. This actually is a slap in the face of the synthetic cannabinoid industry in Colorado. Even in the pdf of the whole bill they do not have every "synthetic cannabinoid" known, listed. However, it was stated that this is a loophole for law enforcement and if a person got a hold of a "synthetic cannabinoid" that was novel and was not listed, once the data for the novel chemical proved it was a CB1 or CB2 active compound, that would make it illegal under the Bill immediately, without being listed and illegal for the person that possessed it, because it would be retroactive. Do you understand what is happening, Colorado is the only state out of the 40 that have outlawed synthetic cannabinoids, that addresses the binding affinity of the cannabinoid to the CB1 or CB2 receptors. Colorado has some intelligent law makers. Whether one likes it or not, you must admit it is rather novel, like Alfa predicted it has come to fruition in Colorado.

    It just amazes me that they are including receptor sites in Senate Bills. I have never seen in the Controlled Substances act chemicals that have an affinity to certain receptor sites stated before.

    For example, phenazepam and etizolam are not illegal in most states because they do not fall under the "Analog Act" because they are Schedule IV substances. If they worded it: That any substance that has an affinity for the GABAb receptor sites are classified as a Schedule IV and possession of these chemicals without a prescription (even though they are not available in the U.S) they are illegal to possess and that would put an end to the legality of both benzo's. However, like in the "synthetic cannabinoid" bill, they can make exceptions, like Baclofen and other GABAb substance. They can make exceptions such in the Colorado Bill concerning THC (since in Colorado, 96,000 people are on the MMJ registry) and Nabilone (which is a Schedule II cannabinoid anyway, but prescription) are exceptions to the Bill. However, in all 40 states, the punishment for "synthetic cannabinoids" even though some are schedule I substances, the punishment for possession is usually a Class II Misdemeanor, 6 months in jail and some states have no penalties. Weird, eh! Guess they just haven't gotten around to it yet. They are banned, but in some state there is no penalty. I guess they just confiscate it.

    Stryder09, your question about toxicology or research labs, they usually or did in 1990 have a blanket DEA license that covered all the lab tech's and Chemists that worked there. We had plenty of Schedule I substances. Vials of LSD, Psilocybin, Psilocin, and various other Schedule I drugs. We tested UA's for drugs of abuse. It was the State Department of Health. However, psychological research on Schedule I chemicals requires a lot of red tape. In the UA labs, we had to have the real thing as a standard to test it against the drugs we tested for.

  19. Ellisdeee

    It's less the redundancy that annoys me but, the flooding of all these Marijuana wanna-be chemicals causing long term issues (I suspect if people walked in to a store and say nice high quality MJ next to spice packets, most would grab the MJ, just a guess). Sure they can keep making them, but the more laws they try to make against general 'cannabinoid' chemicals - those are laws that will cover Marijuana. Laws work purely by paper and the book - on the flip side there are people working on Marijuana's status. Get enough broad laws in and Marijuana itself will even be knocked down further if the bills made for synthetics encompass Marijuana itself. If MJ itself ever does have a chance as more opinion goes in favor of it one day, written laws lingering from the synthetic cannabinoid raving days will still present themselves as roadblocks to progression concerning actual Marijuana.

    The more the market pushes new cannabinoids to override laws, the more broad the laws get. Sure banning JWH-018 has no effect on Marijuana persay. But when they fear the new horizon of unknown drugs and make broad law attempts on cannabinoid agents in general, that is the stuff that will throw a dagger into Marijuana's crusade by proxy. Nobody was trying to make such broad laws like this until these things became popular. I don't agree with the entire scene of drugs and laws for the most part, but I can't help but feel these broad laws will just inadvertently linger to hinder Marijuana when this craze is over (if it ends). Makes the selfish market who only cares about making a buck annoy me. Makes the law makers annoy me. >.<
  20. salgoud
    I live in Colorado where there are 96,000 registered marijuana users. The 11-SB-134 exempts THC and Nabilone (a schedule II narcotic) from the Bill. Marinol is not even in the law because it is a Schedule III. The Bill 134 excempts marijuana and Nabilone from the CB1 and CB2 receptor law, that any "synthetic cannabinoid" that has an affinity to those receptors while be illegal even if they don't have a name yet.

    You see, what it has been coming down to. The bill excludes THC and Nablilone for our MMJ patients and those that decide to take it orally, to increase appetite, reduce pain and get one so screwed up they don't care about the pain, even though cancer itself can be a very hard disease when one is given chemotherapy. After chemo, many patients use MMJ or Nabilone to get their appetite back and just set back and be stoned. And it's all legal in Colorado where some of the best medicinal herb is produced. That is why there is an exception to those to forms of THC. All other "synthetic cannabinoids" follow under the recently passed 11-SB-134 Bill in Colorado.

    One must realize Colorado is a for-profit-state for the MMJ industry. They cater to everyone, from 21 years old to 105 years old and if you live longer than that, it's OK. As long as you have the MMJ registry card. In November we will vote on complete legalization, possession of one ounce or less and one must be at least 21 years old. I like this, even though I'm not a smoker, pot gets me too wacked out. But I am for deregulation of drugs. This is the first step. Do you realize how many people are in prison for drug offenses. At least 75% in Colorado. Nobody needs "synthetic cannabinoids" in Colorado, the have edibles, Keef Cola, butter made with MMJ, candy bars, granola bars, the list is endless.

    So the receptor law is the first that I've known about it right here in beautiful Colorado. Man the city smells so good. Reefer growing everywhere in warehouses. I believe Colorado is on top of the line, when it comes to MMJ production. Who needs to pay thousands of dollars for a chain store prescription drug, Marinol, when they can get the real thing, legally, for free, if you grow it yourself. Three flowering and three in the vegetative state.

To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!