Synthetic cannabinoids have been linked to poisonings and death.Szapucki/Flickr, CC BY
The DEA can’t keep up with synthetic cannabinoids
In 2012, President Obama signed into law the Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act (SDAPA), which amended the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 to place “cannabimimetic agents” – substances that mimic the effects of cannabis – into Schedule I, the most restrictive regulatory category. Schedule I covers drugs like heroin, LSD and actual cannabis. SDAPA designated several specific synthetic cannabinoids, as well as five chemical classes of cannabinoid molecules, as Schedule I substances. But none of the newest synthetic cannabinoids are explicitly covered by SDAPA.
As chemists modify structures to avoid prohibition, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) adds more synthetic cannabinoids to Schedule I. Since January 2013, the DEA has exercised emergency scheduling powers five times to place a total of 25 synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I. Keep in mind that more than 150 new synthetic cannabinoids were reported by UNODC in 2013.
Once a specific synthetic cannabinoid is placed into Schedule I, related molecules may be considered illegal due to a 1986 amendment to the CSA called the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act (also called the Federal Analogue Act). The act allows any substance which is “substantially similar” to a Schedule I chemical to be treated as such. But in each instance that similarity needs to be demonstrated in a court of law – which can be a slow process. In effect, that means chemists can modify molecular structures faster than the government can demonstrate that they are illegal or add them to Schedule I.
For instance, a notice of intent to move MAB-CHMINACA, the drug tied to hospitalizations in Baton Rouge and elsewhere, to Schedule I was filed last month. MAB-CHMINACA, a derivative of AB-FUBINACA, only appeared after AB-FUBINACA was placed in Schedule I last year – and that is probably no coincidence.
Using a proactive approach to combat synthetic cannabinoids
Perhaps it is time we stopped reactively banning new synthetic cannabinoids and considered more innovative regulatory approaches.
In the pharmaceutical industry, the patents for a drug typically include related “prophetic” structures, preventing competitors from making modified versions of the drug. Prophetic structures are molecules that have not actually been created yet, but could feasibly be prepared, and are predicted to have similar effects to the protected drug.
A law passed in Texas on September 1 used a similar approach to prohibit more than 1,000 potential synthetic cannabinoids that are anticipated to appear in future based on trends observed now. This is a creative approach, but 1,000 is still a finite number. And the total number of chemically possible synthetic cannabinoids is larger still.
Proactive prohibition may slow the release of new synthetic cannabinoids. Or it could simply catalyze the release of increasingly elaborate and chemically diverse variants. If the past few years are anything to go by, 2016 will bring a new wave of unknown and untested synthetic cannabinoids, and more challenges for police, doctors, scientists and lawmakers.
Samuel Banister, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Stanford University; Iain S McGregor, Professor of Psychopharmacology and NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, University of Sydney, and Roy Gerona, Assistant Professor, University of California, San Francisco
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Featured Image Credit: Sebastien Malo/Reuters