How Chemistry Stymies Attempts To Regulate Synthetic Drugs

Hugh Pickens writes "Brandon Keim reports that the war on drugs has a new front, with chemists fabricating synthetic mimics of marijuana, dissociative drugs and stimulants. So far lawmakers appear to be a losing the war, as every time a new compound is banned, overseas chemists synthesize a new version tweaked just enough to evade the letter of the law in a giant game of chemical Whack-a-Mole. 'Manufacturers turn these things around so quickly. One week you'll have a product with compound X, the next week it's compound Y,' says forensic toxicologist Kevin Shanks. 'It's fascinating how fast it can occur, and it's fascinating to see the minute changes in chemical structure they'll come up with. It's similar, but it's different.' During the last several years, the market for legal highs has exploded in North America and Europe. While people raised on Reefer Madness-style exaggerations may be wary of claims that 'legal high' drugs are dangerous, researchers say they're far more potent than the originals. Reports of psychotic episodes following synthetic drug use are common and have led to a variety of laws, but so far the bans aren't working, as the drugs can be subtly tweaked so as to possess a different, legal molecular form. One obvious alternative approach is to ban entire classes of similar compounds; however this is easier said than done. 'The problem with that is, what does "chemically similar" really mean? Change the structure in a small way — move a molecule here, move something to the other side of the molecule — and while I might think it's an analogue, another chemist might disagree,' says Shanks. 'That's the crux of the entire problem. The scientific community does not agree on what "analogue" essentially means.""

Re:I don't understand

[dietdew7]

I don't think these drugs are purchased from a pharmacy.

Re:I don't understand

[khipu]

but then again, so do cans of spray paint and duster and there are thousands of people out there huffing that shit.

Kittens don't come with warnings. Does that mean they are safe to huff?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kitten_huffing [wikia.com]

Re:Legalize it all.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing they're under prohibition then so things like that don't happen anymore.

Re:when will we learn?

[kestasjk]

You're like, totally harshing my buzz man..

Re:I don't understand

[TubeSteak]

I believe kittens are known to cause cancer in the State of California.
Thank God I'm not in California! /I manufacture and distribute kittens for the purpose of huffing

Re:I don't understand

[bitt3n]

Yep, it would put cartels and the mafia out of business overnight, leading to less crime and a marked improvement in living conditions and health for everyone, which is why its unlikely to ever happen. Politicians know its good to have a boogeyman in your back pocket to scare the electorate, like wartime presidents never losing office. Law enforcement knows their budgets would be slashed without much crime, and the increasingly paramilitary tactics they are adopting would become unneccessary. In short, those in power would lose control.

well what we could do is legalize drugs, but then illegalize something else, so that the cartels still have a business. For example, what if we made truck nuts illegal? We could have truck nuts being peddled on street corners, colombian truck-nut smugglers smuggling truck nuts from illegal jungle truck-nut laboratories, and truck-nut kingpins bribing truck-nut police to take out rival truck-nut gangs. To get around the problem of people wanting to put truck nuts on their trucks (capital offense), you could have brown bag laws, where the cops couldn't pull you over unless they could actually see the truck nuts.