e-Profile Login and ID Quick Search
Federal and State Governments Take Action to Stem Onslaught of Two New Classes of Synthetic Drugs
Originally published in the February 2012 NABP Newsletter
With claims of offering users a means of altering consciousness without running afoul of the law, two relatively new classes of synthetic drugs are sweeping through the country. Despite its comparatively recent arrival in the United States, cannabinoid-laced “incense” alone is estimated to be a $5 billion industry. Synthetic cannabinoids supposedly mimic the effects of marijuana use, while synthetic cathinones have been touted as a “legal” alternative to such drugs as cocaine or methamphetamine. As evidence of the increasingly widespread use and harm caused by these substances has mounted, local, state, and federal governments have taken swift action to legally constrain their manufacture, possession, and use. At the same time, manufacturers and sellers of the synthetic drugs are taking steps to circumvent new regulations and continue to grow a lucrative new industry.
Incense & Bath Salts
The histories of synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic cathinones are similar. Both drug types became widespread in Europe before being documented in the US around 2008 (cannabinoids) or 2009 (cathinones). Both are marketed as small packets of “not for human consumption” items – usually “herbal incense” for cannabinoids and “bath salts” for cathinones – but are clearly understood by both buyer and seller to be intended for ingestion by those seeking a psychoactive result. Both are widely available over the Internet and from brick-and-mortar stores ranging from head shops to gas stations. Both have triggered a dramatic upsurge in related visits to emergency rooms and calls to poison control centers. US poison control centers received 2,915 calls related to synthetic cannabinoids in 2010; for 2011, the number had risen to 5,741 for the first 10 months of the year. As for synthetic cathinones, related calls to poison centers shot up from 303 in 2010 to 5,625 in 2011 through the end of October alone.
Synthetic cannabinoids are chemically engineered substances functionally similar to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component in marijuana. Originally developed for research purposes, they have never been approved by Food and Drug Administration for therapeutic purposes, and according to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), “there is little information regarding the pharmacology, toxicology, and safety of these substances in humans.” Producers of herbal incense products often dissolve the substance in solvents and spray it in liquid form onto a mixture of dried, chopped, or crushed herbs and other botanical materials; users primarily smoke the “incense” to achieve the psychotropic effects. Analysis has found extensive variation across different samples, including those from the same supplier: different chemical variations, differing potency varying from two to more than 500 times stronger than THC, and even difference in the brain receptors targeted.
While synthetic cannabinoids reportedly often trigger the same physiological responses as marijuana, this is not always the case. Adverse health effects associated with synthetic cannabinoids include agitation, anxiety, nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, hypertension, tremors, seizures, hallucinations, paranoid behavior, and loss of consciousness. News reports and researchers have linked a number of psychotic episodes and deaths to the ingestion of “herbal incense,” including a teenager in Illinois who drove his vehicle into a house and a Nebraska student who killed an assistant principal at his school and himself.
Synthetic cathinones, meanwhile, are central nervous system stimulants structurally and pharmacologically similar to substances such as amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, and cathinone (which occurs naturally in the khat plant). At least two synthetic cathinones, methylenedioxpyrovalerone (MDPV) and methylone, were originally derived from products developed in pharmaceutical research; however, as DEA points out, there are currently no accepted medical uses for these products in the US. Most users reportedly ingest “bath salts” (which are often sold in granular form reminiscent in appearance to real bath salts) by snorting them in powder form or swallowing them, usually in capsule or tablet form.
Synthetic cathinones reportedly trigger physical and psychological responses similar to cocaine or meth; some of the many adverse health effects include extreme agitation or anxiety, hallucinations, paranoia, aggression or disturbed behavior, palpitations, seizures, vomiting, headaches, and hypertension. A number of atrocities and deaths have been attributed to ingestion of synthetic cathinones, including a 21-year-old in Louisiana who shot himself, deaths attributed to driving under the influence of the substances, and users’ violent behavior toward themselves or others.
Moving Quickly
Lawmakers and regulators have acted quickly in response to the situation. On the federal level, in March 2011, DEA issued a final order temporarily designating five chemicals used in synthetic cannabinoid products – referred to as JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol – as Schedule I substances. Their placement into the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) makes illegal their manufacture, distribution, possession, importation, and exportation. The designation lasts for one year, and may be extended for an additional six months during “pendency of proceedings” for a more permanent placement. Likewise, on October 21, 2011, DEA issued a final order temporarily placing three synthetic cathinones – mephedrone, methylone, and MDPV “and their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers” – in Schedule I of the CSA.
Meanwhile, US legislators in early 2011 introduced two bills in each the House of Representatives and the Senate dealing with synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic cathinones. Senate Bill 409, the “Combating Dangerous Synthetic Stimulants Act of 2011,” proposed to amend the CSA to include mephedrone and MDPV as Schedule I controlled substances. At press time, it had passed through committee and had been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar; an identical bill remained in committee in the House. Senate Bill 605, the “Dangerous Synthetic Drug Control Act of 2011,” addressed synthetic cannabinoids; it would put a broad list of “any material, compound, mixture or preparation which contains cannabimemetic agents (or the salts, isomers, or salts of isomers thereof)” into Schedule I of the CSA, and would also extend temporary listing of substances in CSA Schedule I to up to two years, with a one-year extension. At press time, the bill had also been placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar; the House version, which would also ban a number of synthetic cathinones, passed in the House on December 8, 2011, and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
Local and state legislators and regulators have acted even faster. Kansas outlawed the use, possession, and sale of synthetic cannabinoids in 2010 – the first state to pass legislation doing so. By the end of October 2011, at least 40 states had adopted laws or departmental rules banning chemical substances related to synthetic cannabinoids. At least three additional states had similar legislation pending. The drugs have been addressed throughout the country on a more local level, as well. In November 2011, for example, Chicago prohibited the sale of “synthetic marijuana.” States have also taken action against bath salts: by the end of October 2011, at least 33 states had adopted laws or departmental rules outlawing substances related to synthetic cathinones.
The complex nature of the synthetic drugs, however, makes regulation difficult. The manufacturers of the products subtly change the compounds to sidestep laws. In Kansas, for example, the original 2010 law banned three compounds; almost immediately, new compounds began appearing. The state more recently passed legislation taking a broader approach, banning the general chemical classes associated with synthetic cannabinoids. The state’s laws related to synthetic cathinones are likewise broad and attempt to include substitutions or variations the producers might come up with. Other states’ laws vary widely in their specificity, but a number of states are considering legislation adding additional compounds to their original bans, or broadening language to encompass more potential formulations.
Most of the legislation, particularly the more recent broad designations of chemical classes, has been enacted too recently to judge its impact. With large profits, manufacturers and retailers of the substances, meanwhile, have a significant incentive to continue their activities. Enough incentive, no doubt, to keep the cat-and-mouse game between regulators and illicit drug manufacturers going for some time to come.
