Water soluble CB1 agonists, other cannabinoid RCs

[resorcinol]

This is an avenue potheads may enjoy traveling down in the future....

Here's one that keeps it simple... it's a THC prodrug that's water soluble.

THC-O-phosphate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c6/D8THCphosphate.png

The phosphate group is diacidic (can donate two protons). Either as the free acid or as a salt (like THC-O-Phosphate Sodium, for example), this compound is soluble in water and could be injected intravenously with ease, unlike regular THC. The high is probably very similar to THC and weed itself (although some say pure THC feels different than weed). This compound is a classical cannabinoid modeled after the ones in Cannabis.

The second one here is more unique --

WIN 55-212-2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3c/WIN55212-2.svg/170px-WIN55212-2.svg.png

This one has basic nitrogens in it, an unusual trait for a CB1 agonist. It's also in a different chemical class than classical cannabinoids from cannabis. It's a full CB1 agonist while THC is only a partial and there's some evidence that full CB1 agonists cause mild respiratory depression but may also be more fun. Here's a glowing review on Bluelight: http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=355579

The third one I'm posting about here is way unique in that it's a straight up hydrocarbon. It has NO functional groups at all, just straight up carbons and hydrogens! This shows us that receptor interactions can occur via london dispersion interactions only if the compound fits the receptor well enough -- no hydrogen intermolecular bonding, no coordinate covalent, no electronegative functional group interactions, etc etc. Pretty cool!

JWH-171
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/JWH-171.png

Only thing with this one is, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (hydrocarbons with multiple ring systems) tend to be carcinogenic or mutagenic to varying degrees. With no functional groups to metabolically attack, the liver enzymes resort to epoxidation, and epoxides of these compounds tend to be kinda nasty on the body. This one might be better off remaining a novelty and evidence to how simple a molecule can be and still activate receptors. The less toxic more readily metabolized cousins can be sampled.

[duper]

I want some of that WIN 55 shit.. I wonder if it would make you piss dirty for THC? ;)

[resorcinol]

I want some of that WIN 55 shit.. I wonder if it would make you piss dirty for THC? ;)

You'll piss clean. The tests test you for metabolites of known drugs with known metabolites.

The WIN 55 compound is chemically distinct from THC. The only obvious thing they have in common is that they both agonize CB1, and thus produce cannabis-like effects :)

If it ever really caught on the Gestapo would come down on it pretty fast though, I'm sure (caught on like, say, MDMA did). As long as it stays on the RC market only though, I doubt you'll ever in your life be tested for it.

[Hammilton]

I don't think that JWH compound you posted will even be water soluble, but I couldn't swear to that.

There are a lot better, and safer JWH compounds. JWH-018 and 081- both of which I've had- are pretty good and definitely water soluble.

At blacklight.in Murphy put together a PDF of the entire JWH series. They're not just the naphthoylindoles, but some are simplified versions of the THCs. There are even some alkylpyrans that are active; very simple molecules, but I know almost nothing about them.

In the next week (*fingers crossed*) at wiki.blacklight.in we should have all of the papers referenced in any of the wikipedia articles (and more- for those not covered in those articles) available for free download. Anyone who wants to help us get them up more rapidly is more than welcome!

[duper]

You'll piss clean. The tests test you for metabolites of known drugs with known metabolites.


Well, I was just wondering.. Somebody could produce and ingest a previously unknown benzo that would cause them to test positive for benzos, no? :confused:

[resorcinol]

In the benzo case, all benzos are very chemically similar and many produce overlapping metabolites. So in that case, it's possible that an unknown benzo will make you fail. WIN 55 doesn't resemble THC chemically at all.

Yea I know the last one wouldn't be soluble in water. I forgot that part of my post title was "water soluble". The other two will be soluble in water. The last one is really only there because it's interesting, there are def better and safer ones in the JWH series.

[resorcinol]

Adding to my WIN 55 212-2 ramblings:

I didn't know up until recently that d-9-tetrahydrocannabinol was only a partial agonist at CB1 receptors. Now those of us who enjoy weed know what a pleasure it can be to smoke it, and while tolerance does happen (lets ignore physical dependence totally here, for a moment), it isn't quite the cruel mistress that opioid tolerance is. Opioid tolerance seems to develop more swiftly and comletely than cannabinoid tolerance does. Perhaps this is why, even though d-9-THC is only a partial CB1 agonist, heavy potheads can still get stoned if they smoke enough; with opioid partial agonists, if your tolerance is high enough, the partial agonist (ie, bupe) isn't gonna get you high.

But this begs the question -- what would a CB1 full agonist like WIN 55 212-2 feel like? The people on BL that tried it seemed to like it a lot. I also wonder... could compounds like WIN 55 bring the magic back a little bit for heavy potheads that have burned out on reefer, since WIN 55 is a full agonist and d-9-THC is only a partial agonist? Are CB1 full agonists more euphoric? Do they cause respiratory depression?

These are all questions that could begin to be answered if WIN 55 212-2 was cheaper :P

[Shuteyetrain]

Oh, do I feel foolish.

I read this thread and hurried off to find a supplier, and was amazed when I found what appeared to be a vendor selling this for $6 a gram! I was already late for my next class when i found this, so I hurriedly registered and purchased, noting that I saw no legal restrictions on this particular chemical. After class, I return to my account on the vendor page and find, to my great embarrassment and disappointment, that I ordered one milligram of this substance, for $6... Needless to say Im somewhat discouraged, but I will continue to try to find a vendor selling this at a reasonable price. Thanks for informing me about this, though.

Shuteyetrain

[jacky]

shit, 6$ a milligram is a fucking GREAT price compared to many research chems that are being sold as reference compounds.

many of them go for hundreds of dollars a milligram.
some CB1 agonists should be potent enough I imagine that ordering 4-5 milligrams for 30-40 bucks should be considered a deal.

I dont know of many pure compound research chems that go for very cheap.
even common isolates seem to go for over 50$ a gram generally.

some of the endorphin/peptides go for decent prices per milligram...some as low as 10$ a milligram the last I checked....which was awhile ago. some of these compounds are hundreds of times more potent than morphine,...at least on paper. a few milligrams might be too much!

just a statement that I certianly dont suggest people research and buy reference compounds for any use besides scientific.

[SeVeN]

Jacky. Back with a Vengance today!!

[Shuteyetrain]

shit, 6$ a milligram is a fucking GREAT price compared to many research chems that are being sold as reference compounds.

many of them go for hundreds of dollars a milligram.
some CB1 agonists should be potent enough I imagine that ordering 4-5 milligrams for 30-40 bucks should be considered a deal.

I had gathered from the bluelight thread linked above that an active dose was around 3 mgs insufflated. When I thought I had ordered a gram of the stuff, I had had dreams of cutting it with some bicarb and not having to buy weed for quite some time. $18 for a single dose seems a bit pricey for me, but I am by no means experienced with research chemicals.

[Hammilton]

Please, don't use potentially carcinogenic chemicals as a substitute for something really well established (weed).

But 6/mg is insane for these. The only reason it's expensive is because it's a CB1 agonist.

Look at the retarded new zealand vendor selling brown black red garbage for what, 50 bucks a gram?

Now, that's not even 80% pure (based upon simple extraction, which isn't 100%, but it was done by someone really good at it, so I wouldn't suggest that the 80% number is off by more than a few points because I have seen 65 and 77% as numbered floated around). I saw a comment by the (claimed) inventor of the stuff who suggested that this garbage was the result of failure to seperate the final product. or something, I forget what the exact problem was, I think that's right though. first guess, I think that's right.

[resorcinol]

Please, don't use potentially carcinogenic chemicals as a substitute for something really well established (weed).

But 6/mg is insane for these. The only reason it's expensive is because it's a CB1 agonist.

Look at the retarded new zealand vendor selling brown black red garbage for what, 50 bucks a gram?

Now, that's not even 80% pure (based upon simple extraction, which isn't 100%, but it was done by someone really good at it, so I wouldn't suggest that the 80% number is off by more than a few points because I have seen 65 and 77% as numbered floated around). I saw a comment by the (claimed) inventor of the stuff who suggested that this garbage was the result of failure to seperate the final product. or something, I forget what the exact problem was, I think that's right though. first guess, I think that's right.

I agree strongly with your first comment. There's no need to be trying out JWH-171: the carcinogenic potential is high. It's just interesting from a pharmacologic POV in that it demonstrates that even strong receptor ligands can be made that have no heteroatoms (heteroatom = any atom that is not carbon or hydrogen).

The other two however are try-able for reasonable people because I don't see evidence of carcinogenic activity (the first is especially safe, since it's essentially a prodrug for THC that is soluble in water). WIN 55 212-2 is also most likely not a carcinogen. However, one does take that risk with ANY RC with little human testing for these types of adverse side effects.

I made a mistake and included the last one in this thread (the JWH compound) when it is most certainly NOT water soluble, and "water soluble" was in the title of the thread. Whoops. I just found it interesting and kinda forgot about that part of the thread title.

[ryan]

Great thread resourc, I'm gonna do some more digging and report back.
Has anyone tried any of the CB RCs and can comment on which one is the best and why?

[tch2296]

Wait you can just order these substances online?

You can order endorphins?

Wow, I gotta get some of this, an injection of endorphins and CB1 agonists would be pretty amazing...

[ryan]

Wait you can just order these substances online?
You can order endorphins?
Wow, I gotta get some of this, an injection of endorphins and CB1 agonists would be pretty amazing...

If you can't afford suboxone / MMT you def. shouldn't be purchasing chemicals for research :D

[tch2296]

If you can't afford suboxone / MMT you def. shouldn't be purchasing chemicals for research :D

lol, so true.