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.
    PLEASE HELP
    Dismiss Notice

Drug info - US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids (Spice) by State

Discussion in 'Cannabinoids' started by Phenoxide, Oct 24, 2010.

  1. Phenoxide

    Phenoxide Super Moderator Staff Member

    Reputation Points:
    8,533
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Male from United States
    Important Note: As of 1st March 2011, the US Drugs Enforcement Agency has used its emergency scheduling powers to add five synthetic cannabinoids to the Schedule I controlled substances list for a period of 12 months. The five compounds are: JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497 and cannabicyclohexanol. See DEA imposes "emergency" ban to control synthetic marijuana for details. As these compounds are now Schedule I controlled substances, other cannabinoids of similar structure may also be deemed controlled substances under conditions where the Federal Analog Act is contravened.

    _____________________

    Edit: The legal status table here is now well out of date and no longer fit for purpose given the broadness of legislation that has been passed in recent months. This thread will soon be updated with more comprehensive coverage of cannabinoid legal status in the US.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2011
  2. bufalantan

    bufalantan Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    22
    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Male from isle_of_man
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    HU 210 is schedule I by Federal government
     
  3. Terrapinzflyer

    Terrapinzflyer MDMA, RC & News Forums Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    5,657
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,610
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    *Stickied*

    Please Try and keep this thread as clean as possible: discuss issues related to specific cannabinoids/bans in JWH-x bans, direct link to State Bills , The drug-info page for the specific cannabinoid, or threads in the cannabinoid or news forums related to specific bans.
     
  4. hillbilly

    hillbilly Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    how did swim come to the conclusion that jwh 081 is still legal in ms? after reading the law it just bans synthetic marijuana. where does it state in the law that jwh 018, 250, 073 are illegal an o81 isnt? from what i have read of the mississippi law it just says synthetic mary jane.
     
  5. Phenoxide

    Phenoxide Super Moderator Staff Member

    Reputation Points:
    8,533
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Male from United States
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    As I recall mississippi was probably the hardest state of the 50 to verify information for. This is because their electronic records of bills (even passed ones) are very slowly updated and the bill probably won't be visible on the legislature's site for some months.

    I managed to dig up a version of SB2004 elsewhere (as attached), which specifically lists the controlled substances in the table above. Note that HU-210 is also federally scheduled. JWH-081 was not listed in this document, but there is also the possibility that this may not have been the final version of the bill. I'd assume this this version was sent to the governor that it is unlikely to have changed. However if anyone in mississippi can provide proof either way that would be helpful.

    In any case the wording of the law is not so vague as to control synthetic marijuana as has been widely reported in the press. Specific named compounds are controlled by SB2004, and in this version at least JWH-081 was not among them.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Nov 6, 2010
  6. Terrapinzflyer

    Terrapinzflyer MDMA, RC & News Forums Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    5,657
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,610
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    Apparently the Oregon ban is only a temporary ban (6 months) while they review the info

    see this post in the thread: Synthetic pot banned in Oregon
     
  7. Phenoxide

    Phenoxide Super Moderator Staff Member

    Reputation Points:
    8,533
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Male from United States
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    See note 11 :p

    Though from what I gathered researching this was pretty much just buying time until a state or federal law comes into effect. Whether or not the derivative law persists beyond April 2011 remains to be seen, but it would be highly unusual to keep something that broad in a controlled substances state law. If other more specific bans prove ineffective in the intervening period but this ban proves effective then maybe they'll make it stick, either by extending the board of pharmacy ban or incorporating a 'catch-all' clause into state law. Time will tell. Hawaii also made reference to the lack of state-level derivative laws and weaknesses of the Federal Analog Act, so it's fair to say broader legislation is being considered to stem the tide of RC products.
     
  8. Terrapinzflyer

    Terrapinzflyer MDMA, RC & News Forums Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    5,657
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,610
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    I have just uploaded to the archives a document prepared by/for the Oregon Board of Pharmacy covering information of various state actions related to synthetic cannabinoids. Includes many links to state bills. HERE (looking at it I do wonder if they gathered info here)
     
  9. Terrapinzflyer

    Terrapinzflyer MDMA, RC & News Forums Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    5,657
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,610
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    The DEA has moved to use its emergency scheduling powers to control: JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol

    otice of intent has been filed in the Federal Register. This gives a minimum 30 day window before the one year temporary scheduling takes place. So likely this will kick in around the first of the new year.


    It is unclear at this time if they will move to use the Analog Act to prosecute other synthetic cannabinoids not specifically listed here. Time will tell.

    Agency Will Study Whether To Permanently Control Five Substances
     
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2010
  10. Terrapinzflyer

    Terrapinzflyer MDMA, RC & News Forums Platinum Member & Advisor

    Reputation Points:
    5,657
    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,610
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    Washington (state) Board of Pharmacy has enacted a ban:

    http://anonym.to/?http://www.doh.wa.gov/Publicat/2010_news/10-210.htm

    Sorry- I can't seem to find the specifics- allegedly on the DOH site linked to in the press release.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  11. Sizaint

    Sizaint Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    Messages:
    40
    Female from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    a dog licked me and I suddenly understood what he was saying, he told me that several CITYS in UTAH are banning Spice on the City level. the dog has to drive 20 mins now.. for the shlug you get in smoke shops while the dog waits for his mail orders.

    (the Dog is always sober when the dog drives)
     
  12. PhoenixPie

    PhoenixPie Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    29
    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Male from U.S.A.
    North Carolina law will raise the bar !!!

    Is this the shape of things to come?

    NC HB12 and SB9 are the most comprehensive yet in terms of the drugs it will cover if passed. Interesting that NC is willing to impede research into all these chemical just to try to get spice off the streets.

    Here is an excerpt from the NC HB12

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    (6) Synthetic cannabinoids. – Any material, compound, mixture, or preparation
    that contains any quantity of the following substances, their salts, isomers
    (whether optical, positional, or geometric), homologues, and salts of isomers
    and homologues, unless specifically excepted, whenever the existence of
    these salts, isomers, homologues, and salts of isomers and homologues is
    possible within the specific chemical designation:

    a. Naphthoylindoles. Any compound containing a
    3-(1-naphthoyl)indole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom
    of the indole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl,
    cycloalkylethyl, 1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or
    2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group, whether or not further substituted in
    the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the
    naphthyl ring to any extent. Some trade or other names: JWH-015,
    JWH-018, JWH-019, JWH-073, JWH-081, JWH-122, JWH-200,
    JWH-210, JWH-398, AM-2201, WIN 55-212.

    b. Naphthylmethylindoles. Any compound containing a
    1H-indol-3-yl-(1-naphthyl)methane structure with substitution at the
    nitrogen atom of the indole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl,
    cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
    1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group,
    whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and
    whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.

    c. Naphthoylpyrroles. Any compound containing a
    3-(1-naphthoyl)pyrrole structure with substitution at the nitrogen
    atom of the pyrrole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl,
    cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
    1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group
    whether or not further substituted in the pyrrole ring to any extent
    and whether or not substituted in the naphthyl ring to any extent.
    Another name: JWH-307.

    d. Naphthylmethylindenes. Any compound containing a
    naphthylideneindene structure with substitution at the 3-position of
    the indene ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl,
    cycloalkylethyl, 1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or
    2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group, whether or not further substituted in
    the indene ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the
    naphthyl ring to any extent.

    e. Phenylacetylindoles. Any compound containing a
    3-phenylacetylindole structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom
    of the indole ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl,
    cycloalkylethyl, 1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or
    2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group whether or not further substituted in
    the indole ring to any extent and whether or not substituted in the
    phenyl ring to any extent. Some trade or other names: SR-18,
    RCS-8, JWH-250, JWH-203.

    f. Cyclohexylphenols. Any compound containing a
    2-(3-hydroxycyclohexyl)phenol structure with substitution at the
    5-position of the phenolic ring by an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl,
    cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
    1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group,
    whether or not substituted in the cyclohexyl ring to any extent. Some
    trade or other names: CP 47,497 (and homologues),
    cannabicyclohexanol.

    g. Benzoylindoles. Any compound containing a 3-(benzoyl)indole
    structure with substitution at the nitrogen atom of the indole ring by
    an alkyl, haloalkyl, alkenyl, cycloalkylmethyl, cycloalkylethyl,
    1-(N-methyl-2-piperidinyl)methyl, or 2-(4-morpholinyl)ethyl group,
    whether or not further substituted in the indole ring to any extent and
    whether or not substituted in the phenyl ring to any extent. Some
    trade or other names: AM-694, Pravadoline (WIN 48,098), RCS-4.

    h. 2,3-Dihydro-5-methyl-3-(4-morpholinylmethyl)pyrrolo[1,2,3-de]-1,
    4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-1-napthalenylmethanone. Some trade or other
    names: WIN 55,212-2.

    i. (6aR,10aR)-9-(hydroxymethyl)-6, 6-dimethyl-3-(2-methyloctan-2-yl)
    - 6a,7,10,10a-tetrahydrobenzo[c]chromen-1-ol 7370. Some trade or
    other names: HU-210."

    SECTION 2. G.S. 90-95(h) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:
    (2a) Any person who sells, manufactures, delivers, transports, or possesses in excess of 35 grams of a synthetic cannabinoid shall be guilty of a felony,
    which felony shall be known as "trafficking in synthetic cannabinoids." The
    person shall be punished as a Class F felon and shall be sentenced to a
    minimum term of 70 months and a maximum term of 84 months in the
    State's prison and shall be fined not less than fifty thousand dollars
    ($50,000)."

    SECTION 3. This act becomes effective April 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
     
  13. Phenoxide

    Phenoxide Super Moderator Staff Member

    Reputation Points:
    8,533
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Male from United States
    Re: North Carolina law will raise the bar !!!

    This would be quite a development, as I do not believe any US states have imposed permenant similarly wide-reaching derivative laws to date. The only thing that even comes close is the Oregon Board of Pharmacy placing any "cannabinoid receptor agonist" on an emergency ban until April. It is certainly far more stringent than the restrictions imposed by scheduling a prescribed list of compounds.

    This legislation actually looks far more like an expanded version of the UK legislation on synthetic cannabinoids, and I imagine this is what they've largely based it upon. Is this the first time North Carolina has used such wide-acting derivative laws or are drug laws in this state always broad?

    It will be interesting to see if other states follow suit either in tackling the cannabinoids or beta-ketones.
     
  14. PhoenixPie

    PhoenixPie Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    29
    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: North Carolina law will raise the bar !!!

    Yes, this is the first time I've seen legislation remotely like this in my state. I can't help but wonder, since Huffman lives in Silva, North Carolina, if they didn't "invite" him to participate in the crafting of this legislation. Think about all the researchers at Duke, UNC, NC State, and other colleges and tertiary medical centers whose research will be hampered by making all these compounds schedule I. It set's a very dangerous precedent, IMO.

    - Pie
     
  15. Ratha

    Ratha Titanium Member

    Reputation Points:
    304
    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Messages:
    111
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: North Carolina law will raise the bar !!!

    No need to invite Huffman, everything they need is contained on this board, written by people who gleefully discuss/ask how they can get around new bans with new products.
     
  16. PhoenixPie

    PhoenixPie Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    29
    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: North Carolina law will raise the bar !!!

    And if they pass this, it will be a crying shame because it's just going to go underground. And then you don't even get the chance to try to put standards in place, etc. There's a desire, and desires want to be satisfied and typically find a way.
     
  17. Phenoxide

    Phenoxide Super Moderator Staff Member

    Reputation Points:
    8,533
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Male from United States
    Re: North Carolina law will raise the bar !!!

    Just for the sake of comparison here is the UK legislation covering synthetic cannabinoids. Note the extreme similarity in wording to that used in the above bill:

    The NC legislation plugs two of the most obvious holes in this UK legislation. It adds N-haloalkyl substitutions on the indole ring to the list of controlled derivatives and also covers benzoylindoles. This allows it to also control a majority of AM-x series compounds in addition to "RCS-4" and "RCS-8", as well as a huge theoretical chemical space.

    Ratha may well have a point that these holes were plugged using information on this forum, as both these weaknesses in the UK law have been pointed out repeatedly since the UK law change over a year ago. You have to give them some credit though... if the intent is to control all synthetic cannabinoids then this is by far the most effective attempt at legislation of any of the states thus far.
     
  18. PhoenixPie

    PhoenixPie Silver Member

    Reputation Points:
    29
    Joined:
    May 28, 2010
    Messages:
    28
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: North Carolina law will raise the bar !!!

    These are new compounds, for the most part un-researched. The data that people share on this site is extremely valuable, and I'm not willing to let The Powers That Be force us to hide and be silent. We have rights.
     
  19. Phenoxide

    Phenoxide Super Moderator Staff Member

    Reputation Points:
    8,533
    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2009
    Messages:
    5,736
    Male from United States
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    This listing is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain due to a flurry of legislative activity following the DEA announcing its intention to emergency schedule five synthetic cannabinoids. In addition to more states now actively legislating, the wording of the newer legislation is becoming more elaborate, covering many more compounds than the states that acted early. We are also starting to see states (namely Montana and North Carolina) implementing wide-reaching derivative laws in addition to a prescribed list of controlled compounds.

    If you have any information on the progess of state legislation on cannabinoids, please post it here: JWH-x bans, direct links to State Bills. Of particular interest are the house/senate bills references, effective dates of any legislation, and also keeping us updated as and when the bills are passed.
     
  20. Shoobiscuit

    Shoobiscuit Newbie

    Reputation Points:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Male from U.S.A.
    Re: US Legal Status of Synthetic Cannabinoids by State

    Shit, North Carolina has proposed legislation now? I live in NC and hadn't heard anything about it. I just tried to find some info and found a few news articles. Apparently if it the law is passed, which of course it will be, it's supposed to take effect at the beginning of April. I haven't been able to find any real good information on it, though. You say "wide-reaching derivative laws," which I guess means anything that acts as synthetic marijuana, as opposed to just JWH-018 or a particular chemical???

    Like many people, I assumed the ban took effect near the end of December. It wasn't until a couple of weeks ago that I learned otherwise. I've been trying to keep up on the news, but there's so much bad reporting out there that it's tough to learn anything substantial about what's really going on.

    From what I understand, though, the DEA may not be able to ban the products because it potentially violates some rule or law that says the DEA can't ban anything that would impact business by over $100 million Right? But I've also read something about how if the benefits to society outweigh the impact on business then the ban can happen anyway, and you know with the way these products have been painted in the media that the DEA would likely win that argument.

    I know the RCA (Retail Compliance Alliance) has formed to fight the DEA and is prepared to take them to the Supreme Court, if necessary. People seem to think the ban can still take effect any day, but if they're going to have a potential lawsuit on their hands and if it potentially violates certain rules, is it still possible for them to ban these chemicals/products? Is that why there's been such a delay? I figured maybe that's why so many state governments are taking up the fight because their ruling is final and more concrete than what the DEA can do?

    I know that many headshops around here have re-stocked their shelves with the JWH-sprayed products. It seems unlikely that they would do so if they truly felt the ban is going to take effect in the immediate future.