Trigger warning: Drugs

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah we're all familiar with research chemicals/bath salts, I think.

I suspect there will always be a market for weird fringe experimental drugs, but like I said, I suspect the market for synthetic cannabinoids will also decline considerably after marijuana is legally available in stores for recreational use. But, we won't know until a year or so has gone by.

Should be interesting. And I think with two states being given the chance to try it, we'll all get some actual real data on so many questions.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Synthetic cannabinoids are already banned in Colorado and Washington as well as federally, for the record. http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/synthetic-pot-ban-approved-in-colorado
http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_9a88d0d5-bee9-5f8a-9532-0a9c70fe6718.html

[AFK]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation

Oh.  Crap.

From that article:

Still, commercial sale of recreational marijuana remains illegal until licensed stores open after the first of the year.

So is it really hard to get marijuana in Colorado?  Commercial sale may be illegal but possession is now legal, so unless you are buying your weed directly in front of a federal agent, the sale is de facto legal.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/09/13/222052914/synthetic-marijuana-prompts-colorado-health-investigation

Oh.  Crap.

From that article:

Still, commercial sale of recreational marijuana remains illegal until licensed stores open after the first of the year.

So is it really hard to get marijuana in Colorado?  Commercial sale may be illegal but possession is now legal, so unless you are buying your weed directly in front of a federal agent, the sale is de facto legal.

I was just pointing out that line because you seemed to be using the article linked to say that marijuana is legal in Colorado and they are still having problems with the use of synthetics, but in reality nothing has really changed, and won't until the first of the year, rendering your point moot.

Besides, synthetic cannabinoids are illegal there already, as well as being illegal at a Federal level, as per the links I posted.

So we don't actually know whether the legalization of marijuana will have an effect on the use of synthetics, and probably won't have much data to go on until at least 2015.

[AFK]

That is a constantly moving target.  All a chemist needs to do is alter a chemical here and there and, you have a new legal synthetic:

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/undercover-investigation--new-legal-forms-of-synthetic-marijuana-on-sale-in-northeast-ohio

[AFK]

There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user.  It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

That is a constantly moving target.  All a chemist needs to do is alter a chemical here and there and, you have a new legal synthetic:

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/undercover-investigation--new-legal-forms-of-synthetic-marijuana-on-sale-in-northeast-ohio

Yes, although it takes longer to "alter a chemical here and there" than most people probably think. I am strongly against the use of these synthetics because a new molecule can have all kinds of nasty unwanted effects, and they're essentially totally untested. I think we agree on that.

But really, that's a whole separate discussion. This discussion just questions whether legalizing marijuana will decrease the sales of synthetic marijuana. I suspect it will, and I hope it does, but we don't have data yet.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Thing is, everyone knows how weird synthetic shit can be, so if the real stuff is legal, people will use it instead of the weird shit.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Most of the damage associated with use have been from from impurities rather than the drugs themselves.

1.  Link?

2.  Does it matter?  Turns people into cannibal zombies.  CANNIBAL ZOMBIES.  Doesn't matter HOW it happens.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user.  It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact.

I disagree with you on that, specifically with regards to the cannabinoids. They are marketed as a "legal herbal high" in corner stores and head shops, they are masquerading as plant matter, and young people in particular are unaware of how dangerous they can be.

"Bath salts" are well-publicized enough now that I think most people are at least reasonably aware of the problems with them, but that hasn't happened with synthetic cannabinoids, which are marketed to look innocuous and natural, and target the young.

But as I said, really only time will tell. We should have some data in 2015.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Most of the damage associated with use have been from from impurities rather than the drugs themselves.

1.  Link?

2.  Does it matter?  Turns people into cannibal zombies.  CANNIBAL ZOMBIES.  Doesn't matter HOW it happens.

I'd like a link for that, too. "Impurities" is often code for "we made it wrong", which is a frequent enough problem even when legitimate chemists are trying to synthesize something.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There really is a certain kind of drug user that is interested in these synthetics, and it isn't your social baker or your casual weed user.  It's usually a more hard core drug user, so legalization really won't have much of an impact.

Actually, perhaps on second thought you are absolutely right. Only hard core drug users are interested in these kinds of drugs, not your casual user or social baker. So it really won't make much of a difference whether they're legal or not, because making them illegal won't deter hardcore users anyway, as we have seen with other drugs, and the casual users aren't buying them anyway.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Most of the damage associated with use have been from from impurities rather than the drugs themselves.

1.  Link?

2.  Does it matter?  Turns people into cannibal zombies.  CANNIBAL ZOMBIES.  Doesn't matter HOW it happens.

I'd like a link for that, too. "Impurities" is often code for "we made it wrong", which is a frequent enough problem even when legitimate chemists are trying to synthesize something.

"Impurities cause the problem" also sounds kind of like the reverse RWHN argument...No drug can be "bad", just "impure".

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also:

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Most of the damage associated with use have been from from impurities rather than the drugs themselves.

1.  Link?

2.  Does it matter?  Turns people into cannibal zombies.  CANNIBAL ZOMBIES.  Doesn't matter HOW it happens.

I'd like a link for that, too. "Impurities" is often code for "we made it wrong", which is a frequent enough problem even when legitimate chemists are trying to synthesize something.

"Impurities cause the problem" also sounds kind of like the reverse RWHN argument...No drug can be "bad", just "impure".

Which is great because there are so many arguments wrapped up into one, there.