"People Who Use It Are Idiots"
There has been a lot of chatter in the blogosphere about K2 lately, and a little research yields an interesting story about its beginnings. Dr. John Huffman, an organic chemistry professor at Clemson University, had been researching marijuana to discover ways of separating any useful compounds from its psychoactive effects and discovered a way to create a synthetic compound similar enough to THC to be used in the same way. His intent was not to encourage its use in the form of K2; in fact, he considers it dangerous with unknown toxicity (the blog title is a quote from him).
Its legality is being addressed in some states, even in those that are considering a form of marijuana decriminalization. The DEA calls it a 'drug or chemical of concern.' Dr. Huffman calls its users 'idiots.'
Enough said.
Comments
Sounds like yet another reason to legalize marijuana
Thanks for the great insight. I couldn't agree with you more that people should be careful about consuming unknown products which are not monitored for quality control or potential dangers.
This is another good reason to legalize less dangerous drugs and non-addictive drugs like marijuana, psilocybin, and LSD.
The only other sensible thing to do would be to make the more dangerous and addictive drugs like tobacco and alcohol illegal.
As a neuroscientist with a deep understanding of how various drugs affect the brain and the body I think it is imperative that peer-reviewed scientific research be used as the basis for determining the scheduling of drugs.
Still won't be better than natural cannabis
It is not necessary to "[separate] any useful compounds from its psychoactive effects". What's wrong with the real cannabis plant? It has a better track record of safety than all other drugs, legal or illegal (not to mention its usefulness in other non-drug applications as a fiber or fuel). Besides, how is it possible to remove the psychoactive compounds from the useful ones? The psychoactive compounds in cannabis are useful (THC) as well as the non-psychoactive ones (CBD, CBN, etc.) These cannabinoids, found naturally in the plant, all have different effects. We already know what the constituents of natural cannabis are and have a synthetic version of THC in the US (Marinol). It has not been shown to be as safe as the natural version of cannabis, which is "one of the safest therapeutic medicines known to man". Even the Lancet agreed that "The smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health . . ." and they were considering only those who were smoking it. Vaporizing or eating is obviously healthier than that.
Let's compare... the highest grade cannabis probably has around 22-25% THC content and contains other cannabinoids, many of which scientists recognize are beneficial in some way, and some which still have not been studied in great detail. Then there's Marinol, which contains pure THC (which is the most psychoactive constituent in cannabis), is synthetic (meaning companies can patent and make money off of it), and can get you higher than any real known strain of cannabis (including all sativa and indica varieties). Only other difference between these medicines is one is legal and one is not.
So even if scientists wanted to extract only the "useful" parts of the plant, they wouldn't succeed because cannabis contains many different chemicals and useful properties. And even if they could, who cares? If a synthetic form of cannabis is legal, then so should the plant it originated from. Otherwise, it's merely exploiting nature for financial gain, and incarcerating Americans for unjust reasons.
What do you think?
Scientists want to isolate the different chemical compounds in marijuana so that they can be studied for their medicinal effects and so that they could then be duplicated safely to be dosed. There is no accurate dosing possible with raw marijuana - too many variables, so there's no ability for anything beneficial in the plant to help people predictably. I could eat all the bread mold in the world, but I have no idea whether that would fight my sinus infection. Same thing. Science pulls out the good, studies it, makes it as safe as possible and sends it out there to do what good it can.
If we really want to help people, let's demand that the FDA regulate marijuana.
Excellent Point, However...
You make an excellent point about the need for a prescribed medicine to be controlled doses. However, I would point out that we allow the use of raw, herbal medications in this country as well. Thus, while I support the production of a synthetic or otherwise controlled dosing system regulated by the FDA, I would urge the legalization of cannabis as a raw, homeopathic route to the medicine. After all, people enjoy smoking the raw plant!
Studies
How can any research get done, when there is so much red tape to cut in order to do simple studies? Having to go through multiple Federal and state agencies just to get the ok to study something is completely against the ethics of science. The DEA should not be able to decide whether a college psychologist is able to study the affects of a drug.
Synthetic Cannabinoids Unnecessary
Everyone says we have to defer to scientific study to justify medical or other uses for natural cannabinoids. Guess what... the science is in!
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
The studies completed and reported in the PDF link above give STRONG credence to those who assert that smoking raw cannabis is a safe and effective way to relieve neuropathic pain AND spasticity due to multiple sclerosis.
What does the DFAF think of this?
...When the "alternative" is more dangerous...
Would we have dangerous concoctions billed as a legal cannabis alternatives if natural cannabis were legal? I notice a conspicuous lack of bathtub moonshine blinding its users. But we as a nation have a habit of driving people away cannabis to far more risky and damaging substances. Anything to keep people away from cannabis itself. It's all quite ridiculous really. This outlines the remarkable failure of the war on drugs. Something we as a nation have seen over and over again for over 4 decades now. Push hard on one drug and the users move to something else and simply makes the problem worse. Allow people to use cannabis and K2 use wouldn't be an issue.
I do notice one similarity between K2 and cannabis. Both were deemed "dangerous" and demonized without any effort given to study to actual risks of its use. Maybe some day we can have an honest and frank discussion about the realities of the substances we put in our bodies.
Agreed!
I agree with you that people using an untested chemical to get high are idiots. Even if it produces effects analogous to THC (which is notably non-toxic) the chemical structure of JWH-018 is different and it may well have different effects overall.
On the other hand, we know a lot about the relative safety of THC and... it's way safer than alcohol, our one legal recreational drug.
So why is DFAF so keen to keep marijuana illegal again?
Transparency
Who pays for organizations like DFAF? Does this organization allow the public to veiw every person and company who puts money here? I would suspect incoming money from tobacco companies and alchohol companies. Because the CEOs know the DFAF can only do so much damage to their industries, but the DFAF can help Keep marijuana illegal.
I'm looking at a "Did you know?" factoid and it says "Since 1997, the US Forest Service has eradicated seven million pounds of marijuana grown on California national forest land."
These Gorilla gardens are ran by mexican cartels. If marijuana was legalized these type of gardens would go away. If people could just grow their own plants what would be the purpose to purchase from shady dealers?
Did you know this?
Some states that are using the medicine excuse to legalize marijuana or looking to regulate aren't going to allow people to grow their own. Be careful what you wish for.
And please - let's leave the gorillas out of this. We're encroaching on their habitat enough.