Second synthetic cannabis product recalled within days

[Truthman]

Be careful who you get your meds from. Be safe:

Second synthetic cannabis product recalled within days

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA11...tic-cannabis-product-recalled-within-days.htm

Second synthetic cannabis product recalled within days
Saturday, 2 July 2011, 11:05 am
Press Release: New Zealand Government



Hon Peter Dunne
Associate Minister of Health
Saturday, 2 July 2011 Media Release

Second synthetic cannabis product recalled within days

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne today announced that the Ministry of Health is recalling a second synthetic cannabis product, Juicy Puff Super Strength, within days because it contains the drug phenazepam.

Mr Dunne said finding phenazepam – an anti-anxiety and anti-convulsion prescription drug – in a second product in a week reinforces the problem of suppliers being able to put unregulated drugs on the market where their safety is unproven.

“The people in this industry are generally not trustworthy or reliable.

“They are fast-buck merchants who, on the one hand claim to be offering a legal and safe alternative to illicit drugs, then throw their hands in the air and say they do not know what is in their products when our testing catches them out.

“They cannot have it both ways.

“This has now happened twice in the last week,” Mr Dunne said.

“This industry can be trusted about half as far as it can be kicked.”

He said that restrictions that will curb the marketing and advertising of synthetic cannabis products are just weeks away, and will be made through amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act.

“In the longer term the solution we are looking at is reversing the onus of proof and making the manufacturers and suppliers prove their products are safe before they get anywhere near the market.

“That way they will not be able to just change an ingredient or two and put a new variant of the same bad products on the market.

“From the response to Thursday’s recall of Pineapple Express, it is clear the vast majority of the public are behind the Government’s moves to change the onus of proof so producers and suppliers of these products need to prove they are safe before they can sell them,” he said.

Currently, authorities have to prove such products are unsafe before they can be taken off the market.

“We are doing that successfully, but it is not an ideal process. It is cart before horse and the restrictions that will come in in the next few weeks are an important step in addressing these issues,” Mr Dunne said.

”Juicy Puff Super Strength now joins Kronic Pineapple Express as being illegal to buy, sell, use or possess without a doctor’s prescription – and that means it is off the market,” he said.

The Health Ministry is contacting Cosmic Corner Limited, the company that supplies Juicy Puff Super Strength, to officially inform it that is required to recall it from retailers immediately.

As with Kronic Pineapple Express, the Ministry will conduct further investigations before making any decision on a possible prosecution.

 

[Ptone]

Man they are really good at ruining something safe and natural...
/facepalm

 

[Sour Deez]

Is this the stuff they sell as incense or whatever, and kids have been smoking it since its a similar high and doesnt show up on piss tests?

 

[zymos]

The only thing this has to do with anything natural is if they put a pot leaf on the label!

I'm all for letting adults make their own decisions about what they put in their bodies, and I'm not for making any drug type substance illegal, but I gotta say...

... the synthetic cannabinoids can be bad news.

My wife has been working a couple shifts a week at the local psych ER. She has seen lots of people coming in due to "spice", and it is seeming many of the times it isn't just an acute "freaking out" kind of thing, but more of a long-term psychosis.

Apparently lots of these guys are in the military, and would obviously be using plain old mary jane if it wasn't for the piss tests.

 

[devilgoob]

Those synthetic cannabinoids are actually addictive.

I know the difference, and the K2 and others are no exception. I am not here to scare, but they actually make a person fiend.

EDIT: That psychosis stuff is real, but for me it is alright. See, normal people can see someone be killed or can't handle what they see....me...I experience psychosis almost everyday.

The status epileptus is real also, I could see someone becoming hypertensive then having acute shock...then constantly seizing after that.

 

[HempHut]

Yes, it's the stuff sold as "incense" and usually labeled as "not for human consumption" (Spice, K2, et al), but everyone knows to smoke them because they get you high. They usually contain one or more of the synthetic cannabinoids -- like the JWH compounds. As well as a myriad of other mystery ingredients.

The only reason these products exist is prohibition.

The synthetic cannabinoids themselves are sometimes used in medical research because scientists usually can acquire and use them far easier than the real stuff -- which is, of course, an artifact of prohibition as well.

 

[Preacher]

The problem, as the article nicely stated, is phenazepam. That drug probably does belong in the drug schedules (going by the theoretical purpose of the drug schedules, not my opinion mind you).

HempHut nicely posted the second half of what I came into this thread to say. My conclusion is this: they're going to use this as an excuse to do a sweeping ban that includes the JWH series, which you can now just get safely in the pure form from online shops.

 

[supermanlives]

that stuff is dangerous unlike real weed and damnit if it aint almost as expensive

 

[bombadil.360]

The synthetic cannabinoids themselves are sometimes used in medical research because scientists usually can acquire and use them far easier than the real stuff -- which is, of course, an artifact of prohibition as well.

you mean Hacks, not Scientists.

if you want to study the effects of lets say, orange juice, you cannot use orange flavored kool aid to do it.

 

[HempHut]

you mean Hacks, not Scientists.

if you want to study the effects of lets say, orange juice, you cannot use orange flavored kool aid to do it.

No, I mean scientists. Just because they can't use naturally occurring cannabinoids does not make them "hacks" nor does it make their research worthless -- you can study the Endocannabinoid system by using synthetics and certainly discover many things of worth.

Your analogy is way too simplistic -- synthetic cannabinoids do interact with the Endocannabinoid system "properly" (otherwise they wouldn't be cannabinoids) and therefore administering them (or inhibiting their interactions) can yield worthwhile results in terms of research.

Would it be better to use naturally occurring cannabinoids? -- sure, I wouldn't argue the point at all, but generally the scientists using the synthetics are doing so because of the barriers they face in acquiring and utilizing the naturally occurring ones. As I said above, it is an artifact of prohibition. To automatically label someone working with synthetic cannabinoids a "hack" is premature and unfair. I'm talking about legitimate research here -- not some "bathtub chemist" mixing up some synthetic to use in some commercial product to get people high.

 

[zymos]

...and to extend that- by using various analogs, they can potentially discover structure/function relationships that might not be apparent if they only had natural cannabinoids. Which is more or less the whole reason these compounds were invented in the first place- it wasn't some scientist who couldn't get a hold of the "real thing"...

 

[bombadil.360]

I do not agree at all.

another great analogy would be using plastic dolls as "women" to study the effect of sexual relations between heterosexuals.

synthetic cannabinoids, the term says it all, where do you suppose they came up with the term cannabinoid in the first place?

real scientists get the real deal anyway, only kids in college labs cannot get it.

 

[zymos]

I do not agree at all.

another great analogy would be using plastic dolls as "women" to study the effect of sexual relations between heterosexuals.

synthetic cannabinoids, the term says it all, where do you suppose they came up with the term cannabinoid in the first place?

real scientists get the real deal anyway, only kids in college labs cannot get it.

I don't care whether you agree or not, cause you are wrong.

These were first synthesized by John W. Huffman at Clemson University. Which is why all the analogs are named JWH with some number after it. They made these to study endocannabinoid receptors.

His research was funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse- I think he was about as much a "real scientist" as they come.

 

[bombadil.360]

"I don't care 'cause you are wrong"

great debating there.

but your wikipedia research did not tell you that John W. Huffman also worked with real cannabis, he did not come up with the synthetics because he couldn't get a hold of real cannabis, so your point is stupid.

the fact is, if you use synthetic cannabinoids to make "studies" that make conclusions regarding the use of real cannabinoids, the study is done by hacks, not scientists, end of story.

later gator

 

[DoobieDuck]

Give it up Big Pharma...

Give it up Big Pharma...

Well I'm not surprised at all to find our members not getting along here. Very controversial- sorta pathetic- drug companies trying to imitate Mother Nature.

Mr Dunne said finding phenazepam – an anti-anxiety and anti-convulsion prescription drug – in a second product in a week reinforces the problem of suppliers being able to put unregulated drugs on the market where their safety is unproven.

I don't think ^ ^ that is the point..They're trying to slip just about anything into the mix to make it look like their product works in some way. Get real Big Pharma..Mother Nature can't be replaced or reproduced, cannabis is too complex for you boys to understand..DD

 

[HempHut]

Okay, this is really getting silly now. This is my last attempt here.

First, things are getting conflated:

There's a difference between synthetic cannabinoids and "smoking mixtures" which may contain synthetic cannabinoids along with other ingredients.

The original article is about a "smoking mixture" -- not synthetic cannabinoids per se:

So, to say, "They're trying to slip just about anything into the mix to make it look like their product works in some way. Get real Big Pharma..." is correct only in terms of this particular smoking mixture and not in relation to synthetic cannabinoids themselves. In this particular mixture they seem to be using synthetic cannabinoids as well as phenazepam. Furthermore, "big pharma" is not behind these smoking blends -- these are "bathtub chemistry" outfits looking to cash in on the demand for "legal highs".

Also, to say, "Mother Nature can't be replaced or reproduced, cannabis is too complex for you boys to understand." is plain silly. It's almost as is if there is a will to ignorance. We replace and reproduce "mother nature" everyday in a myriad of different ways -- you're welcome to argue the pros/cons of each one of those instances, but denying our capacity to do so is prima facie false. We have literally brought the sun to earth (among thousands of other miraculous achievements) -- understanding cannabis is not beyond our capacity.

It's certainly true to say there's much to still learn about cannabis (not in small part due to the difficulties in researching because of its legal status), but to say it's too complex to be understood is ridiculous.

Now, on to the idea that, "if you use synthetic cannabinoids to make "studies" that make conclusions regarding the use of real cannabinoids, the study is done by hacks, not scientists, end of story."

Asserting something repeatedly or using childishly simple analogies does not form an argument. I can easily find productive studies done by actual scientists which show positive effects of cannabinoids done using synthetics -- here's two in 2 minutes:

1) http://www.jci.org/articles/view/25509

2) http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0023690

No rational person would conclude that the simple fact that synthetics were used in the studies makes each one of these researchers a "hack". What does that even mean? They failed their education? No, they haven't. They're, err, sloppy researchers? Need evidence to support such a claim. It just a slur -- might as well call them all racists, paedophiles, smelly faces or whatever other pejorative terms you can come up with.

Furthermore, these studies throw weight behind the positive benefits of cannabinoids. Let me repeat that -- these are positive results showing benefits of cannabinoids.

Now, lets unpick another issue that might raise concerns -- the consumption of said synthetics. This is where I think a real concern comes in -- herbal cannabis has been with humans for thousands of years and we have been consuming it for a very long time. We understand that it has had a long history and it has shown itself to be very safe -- the same cannot be said for the synthetics. The thing is, I don't really see many or any advocating their consumption -- for the very reason that there is less known in terms of side effects and a much shorter history. They're being used in smoking mixtures because they circumvent (or did circumvent) the laws. John Huffman said don't take them. Their existence does not mean they ought to replace herbal cannabis in terms of consumption -- they're likely more expensive to produce in relation to growing some plants and are certainly more difficult to produce for the average person. Herbal cannabis is what I take. I've tried some of those "smoking mixtures" out of curiosity, but didn't continue use for precisely the reasons I've just outlined.

And finally, the fear that "big pharma" will try and sell synthetics as patentable medicines circumventing herbal cannabis. A legitimate concern as pharma companies love their patents and the big money they can reap from them. But synthetics already exist. You can't put that genie back in the bottle. I'm not sure what can be done to unmake them. The nature of the endocannibinoid system is that the receptors are like locks waiting for the right shaped key -- these keys can come in the form of cannabinoids produced by the body, cannabinoids produced in a plant or cannabinoids produced in a lab. If the key fits, no matter where it originates, then you're lighting up the endocannabinoid system. The plant will never disappear -- it's been made illegal already and look at the current situation. Will it be double secret prohibition now? Herbal cannabis will always be available.

Let me be clear so I don't end up with a hoard of villagers chasing me out of town with pitchforks:

My personal stance is that I only consume cannabinoids produced in cannabis and that's what I would advocate for anyone I speak with -- I've had a personal history of almost 30 years consuming them and trust and know them well. They can be produced easily and cheaply -- nature does have one hell of a chemistry set. But that doesn't mean I don't want research to be done and to continue -- synthetic cannabinoids can be a valuable tool in that research. I really fear a will to ignorance on this and many other subjects -- our one unique human trait is our intelligence -- let's not surrender it to fear.

BTW, I'm neither a chemist or a scientist (nor do I play one on TV ). You can read this thread https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=217037 and Bi0hazard's posts for more info. Not sure what his area of expertise is, but I would guess he has more science background than myself judging from his informative posts.

 

[CANNATOPIA]

Nasty! Nice post though

 

[zymos]

the fact is, if you use synthetic cannabinoids to make "studies" that make conclusions regarding the use of real cannabinoids, the study is done by hacks, not scientists, end of story.

It's not a "fact", it is your opinion based on a lack of knowledge about scientific research.
You can submit your rebutal to the pages "Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry" or the "European Journal of Pharmacology" - ask them how some hack slipped past their peer review process while you're at it. Make sure to impress them with your extensive list of degrees received and research positions.

 

[bombadil.360]

yeah, I do not remember when was the last time "studies" by hacks get published after being "peer reviewed" ... oh wait a minute, I remember, like almost every day ...

what about the study published and peer-reviewed by official sources that said cannabis smoke was bad enough that it killed chimps through asfixiation? (sp?).

later, it was discovered the chimps were killed because they were put in a room full of smoke and no oxigen; even though the study was accepted and peer-reviewed, for a long time, it was "established" that cannabis smoke was deadly through this "study".

again, you cannot make a study on the impact of real cannabinoids on the organism by using synthetic ones, this is self-evident.

you can use synthetics for studying the organism, sure, but never to conclude anything regarding the impact of real cannabinoids, whether the results are "positive" or "negative".

it is quite simple really, if you want to study cannabinoids, use cannabinoids from cannabis plants, that is it.

if you want to study the system of brain receptors, use real ones, synthetic ones, whatever, so long as your conclusions do not extrapolate and speculate with "ifs" and "maybes".

and my orange juice analogy is perfect and fitting

the synthetic orange taste affects the same taste buds, yet, in no way affects the organism in the same way as real orange juice does.

end of discussion.

over and out.

 

[CLOWD11]

phenazepam – an anti-anxiety and anti-convulsion prescription drug

The suppliers are only adding this stuff now in an attempt to counter the medium/long term effects they are now witnessing.
lol